"Imagine that, getting tough actually does work with these terrorists…"

++++
More precisely, it's the ONLY thing that works!

Hillary said "I understand making outlandish political charges"

What she failed to mention is she has honed the skill to an art.
"The vast right wing conspiracy"

The only thing that has gone "way too far" is Hillarys political career.
But she does sell newspapers.

I don't believe that by calling Irans Revolutionary Gaurd a terrorist organization caused them to change any part of their mission. I don't see the purpose for Cheney, and Bushs terrorist claims. When you call someone scum, how can you expect to communicate with any respect. Grow Up"

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

I don't necessarily agree with you assessment on the "terrorist" classification for Iran's Revolutionary Guard, but I do totally agree with your statement and ramifications of name-calling. Bush haters have been using this tactic for years now and wonder with amazement why the political climate in Washington is so bad. DUH!!!! Yes, the Democrats should GROW UP!!!!!!

I don't believe that by calling Irans Revolutionary Gaurd a terrorist organization caused them to change any part of their mission. I don't see the purpose for Cheney, and Bushs terrorist claims. When you call someone scum, how can you expect to communicate with any respect. Grow Up.

So, John Edwards believes that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards are not a terrorist organization.
And he wants us to believe that if he was back in the Senate that he would have voted no. That's why Obama miss the vote, so he would not have to vote yes, along with Hillary.

The Realist qouted Clinton and McCain as follows: "Hillary Clinton: having designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization,we've actually seen some changes in their behavior."

John McCain: Iranians are "still sponsoring terrorist organizations," and "sending dangerous and lethal explosive devices into Iraq."

Change? What change Hillary??

Posted By therealist : December 5, 2007 10:49 am

WELL MR. REALIST–THE STRONG MESSAGE OUR SENATE SENT TO IRAN RE: THE REVOLUTIONARY GUARD–(ALONG WITH THE RECENT TROOP SURGE OF COURSE) APPEARS TO HAVE DECREASED THE IED'S AND INSURGENTS ENTERING IRAQ FROM IRAN. CERTAINLY THIS REDUCTION IS LIKELY TO INCREASED PRESENCE–AND THE REVOLUTIONARY GUARDS MULLAH GENERALS CONCERNS–THAT WITH THE PRESIDENT AND THE SENATE "IN-LINE" ON THEIR POSITION THAT AND RESOLVE TO RETALIATE IF–THEIR WEAPONS AND PEOPLE CONTINUE KILLING OUR TROOPS IN IRAQ. MR. REALIST, THAT COULD HAVE HAD A LITTLE SOMETHING TO DO WITH IT. SO YES SIR–THE RESOLUTION MAY HAVE ADDED A GREAT BOOST TO THE CURRENT MILITARY SURGE IN AFFECTING THE IRQ TO REDUCE THEIR OPERATIONS IN IRAQ. IF THIS LOGIC ESCAPES YOU–CHECK OUT THE DAILY MILITARY BRIEFINGS FOR THE PAST 60 DAYS FROM IRAQ–NOTE A LITTLE DECREASE IN BORDER CROSSINGS, IEDS? HMMMM.

"Imagine that, getting tough actually does work with these terrorists…"

Posted By Rob, Rochelle Park, New Jersey

_____

Finally, a rational thought amongst the bloggers. If the NEI report is true, and indeed Iran did suspend its nuclear weapons program in 2003, isn't it entirely plausible that they did so after seeing the Coalition take military action against their neighor, Iraq because of Saddam's suspected WMD program. Iran may have actually blinked in 2003. Evidence indicates that Saddam wanted the World, and Iran specifically, to think they had WMDs. Could it be that wildly incompetent Bush eliminated a WMD arms race in the Middle East?

CNN,
How come you never ever put up my comments, I always see the same people here.

Of course it is a vote towards a war authorization, Clinton is a Bush style republican , the triangulation thing worked foor Bill, for her its more like a way to have the GOP control both parties

HRC calls Edwards' charge outlandish. Yet, isn't that basically the way the war in Iraq started?
In fact, if you state that the army of a sovereign nation is a terrorist organization, that then extends to the government of that nation and you are, in principal, declaring war against that nation.
Outlandish? I'd call it accurate.

NPR did some fact checking this morning, and experts repudiated Clinton's claim that the terrorist designation has caused any changes in Iranian Revolutionary Guard activities.

Another expert pointed out that the terrorist designation has significantly hampered our diplomatic efforts with Iran.

This unintended consequence shouldn’t come as a surprise–Clinton is the same candidate who said she wouldn't talk with Iran until they met preconditions–just like Bush and Cheney said.

In fact, Clinton pretty much always votes to support Bush’s and Cheney’s foreign policy.

Do we want another president who just doesn’t get international politics?

Hillary supported the Lieberman admendment which basically says Irans army is a terrorist org. That's no way to begin any diplomatic dialog in the direction of non-conflict – That's what I call a step toward war. The other democratic candidates are right to point that out to her.

Whether war with Iran is good or bad, Clinton has to accept the fact that she's taking a step toward war. The good or bad debate can wait, but it is clear that's what she is after. And she can't get upset at Edwards for telling it like it is.

Hillary said during the debate that she has opposed a war with Iran for two years.

Her votes say otherwise. Saying one thing and voting another is dishonest.

Edwards shouldn't be concerned about Clinton. She is going down.

From this hopefully H.Clinton needs to realize she has to explain what the vote means and is for. Part of being president is to make sure people understand what you are doing, and she fails at this time and time again. She needs to be able to explain this vote to people. She was hardly alone in it, the majority of Democratic senators voted for it, the minority against it, so it shouldn't be too hard for her to let this one be put to rest, I don't know why she struggles with this.

Edwards has it right, and he has the vision and capacity to fight for middle class America and be a great President!

Does Oprah have stock in CNN? Is CNN afraid to post viewers opinions about Oprah’s support of obama? You will post any bogus attack on Hillary…

That tells us you support show business selecting your president!

Say what you will, the American people can see through biased election coverage…
We are sick of hearing about obama bashing Hillary, why won’t you EVER cover his lack of experience? He missed important senate votes, yes, even the vote on war! His health plan does not cover everyone, he uses Hillary solutions and tweaks them to suit his opinion, his opinion is what Hillary has been saying for years, he has no voice of his own, he fails miserably when he is standing next to ANYOTHER candidate, He has only been a senator for 104 weeks? That is his experience Oprah is selling for the Presidency?? I don’t care how it is supposed to be perceived. It’s solely RACE motivated, as one person writes…
Someone needs to tell Oprah she will not bye first lady, but barrack will certainly use your name and trash any credibility you has with American public!

This story is a testament to the value of retail politics in Iowa. Two presidential candidates running into the same student in one month would never happen anywhere else.

In such an intimate political atmosphere, astute voters will
catch a phony every time. Despite soaring poll numbers, Senator Clinton is losing to the more authentic Senator Obama.

Is there any OTHER politicians running for President?? To hear the media, its only CLINTON, are the good ole boys saints???I think not, take a good look at obama and his lack of experience and that “FACT” that he doesn’t even show up to vote in the senate as a new senator, But bashes his opponents for doing their job. These guys are discrediting themselves day by day with these constant biased attacks on Hillary solely because they are in fear of losing to the best qualified woman!
Anyone who can with stand all these months of bogus boy attacks since this election started, definitely shows just how strong and that she “is” most educated, qualified and outstanding candidate suited to be Commander in Chief!
As an educated black man and woman, my wife and I have decided Clinton is the only choice! You blew it barrack, especially since hiring oprah, she has no credibility to campaign for a black president, her support will appear race motivated and that’s turns ALL voters and TV show viewers off!

John Edwards is right to raise a red flag about Clinton's vote. Everyone and their uncle knows exactly what Bush & Co. are up to. Thank goodness Congress demanded that intelligent report because if they didn't we would be starting a war with them next year… thanks to all the democrats who voted "Yes" on the resolution.

Hilary Clinton should NOT be the emocratic nominee. She keeps harping on about her experience, but as we have all seen, her actions speak louder than words. She is not good for this country because her experience consists of nothing but fights against republicans. This country will continue to be divided for another 4yrs. Is that what we want?

Edwards is right! Right about using rhetoric as diplomacy, that is basically saber rattling. Right about Hill being a shill for the machine. Right about lobbyist. and..

Right for the job of our next president.

Edward's charge simply has no basis in fact. The further he gets behind (in the polls) the more he leaves the truth! You can take the lawyer out of the courtroom but..etc. etc.
As for you Hilary bashers..WAKE UP to the reality that O'bama & Edwards simply don't have what it takes to win a national election… & Hilary does. The LAST thing I want is another Republican in the White House! Have you HEARD what ALL of them have said in the recent Republican debates? It's downright scary! They're All Bush clones!

Again this is the "experience" we cotinue to hear about. HRC you failed to provide healthcare reform as first lady even though you had a democratic president, senate, and house. You promised the people of up-state new york 200,000 new jobs (lied), the first major foreign policy decision you failed (also failed to read the intel to justify the war) and now you failed on Iran. Am I suppose to feel safe with you in office? Yes, HRC you have the numerical experience but you judgement is flawed and your capacity to lead it absent and becoming apparent to the American people. Give me Obama 08′

Mrs. Clinton is on Point. She is living her options open. I'm a Veteran and I SUPPORT!! She is exactly what the Country Needs!! I am not a Hawk on Going to War, I do regcognize WE must be prepared to maintain a Stong National Defense!! Mrs. Clinton is brilliant in Voting the way that she has and maintained her position for Peace in Iraq and Bringing OUR American TROOPS HOME!! Thanks For The Opportunity To Comment!!

The Iran Revolutionary Guard is a terrorist organization, the vote was the right one, it's time for the leftwingers to get off their high horse and live in the real world…if they can find it.

"we've actually seen some changes in their behavior."
That's exactly how you should have someone change their behavior.. Global politics are not as simple trying to tell your kids who may listen your lovely words.

All those who think of her as war lady…listen… Dems will never favor war. She can not make those decisions on her own. We vote for a policy that is supported by a group of party.

Obama would not make it as a great president. Imagine him next to Ahmadinejad. I am sure he will be nervous for his experience.

Those who don’t know who neighbors Iran on the west and south east need not to look at political news. Watch the entertainment section.

Why does this stay on top while negative Clinton stories are newer and below this?

Biden is far superior to "her" based on REAL EXPERIENCE and frankly forgot more than she knows is exactly right here as is Edwards.

I mostly like both Hillary and Edwards alike, but man… Hillary has got to lay off this Iran stuff.

I don't care if she's trying to straddle the center in order to gain support from both sides of the spectrum – I think it's safe to say that nobody wants another war, period. Edwards was right to point that out.

I love how "Senator" Obama conveniently manages to miss all of the important senate votes, and then takes the opportunity to condemn his peers for actually making decisions. I might actually believe all of his high and mighty rhetoric if he had actually voted on the things he loves to condemn others for supporting… What's more important? Voting for someone who talks a good game, or voting for someone who walks it as well?

Please Hillary, own up. You are a neo-lib that has their strings pulled by the same military-industrial complex as does Bush. You'll always act like you are against war but your actions are deviously opposite.

Hillary Clinton: having designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization,we've actually seen some changes in their behavior.

John McCain: Iranians are "still sponsoring terrorist organizations," and "sending dangerous and lethal explosive devices into Iraq."

Change? What change Hillary??

This NIE will be used by the Iranians as propaganda against the west and the dopey Democracts against George Bush. The terrorists know how to manipulate the news with the Democrats help as long as it makes the President look bad.

The best line I heard was Hill's:

"In fact, having designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, we've actually seen some changes in their behavior.

Imagine that, getting tough actually does work with these terrorists. Hillary is the only one who shows just a little bit of sense about the war on terror. What a sad commentary about todays democrat party

The squabble over the Revolutionary Guard vote was petty politics at its worst. Here you have Dodd and Biden playing the anti-war position that they have always taken. But then you have Edwards who is trying to weasel a political point on the vote along with the Obama whom "ducked" voting either way. At least Clinton voted for the terrorist label for the right reasons.

I applaud Dodd and Biden for sticking to their anti-war guns and Clinton for voting for diplomacy pressure on Iran. I find Edwards annoying as he tries to play up something that is simply NOT there. And Obama, shame on him for not even voting when he easily could have!

We don't need Edwards hype, we need truth. And we need someone that will vote on the tough issues, not give excuses like Obama did and be out of town when the important votes come up.

Telling it like I see it,
Wynter

Due to the media adding an extra year to the 2008 Presidential Election Campaign, the candidates have way too much coverage and since the media are not interested in educating, only entertaining, too few substantive ideas make the news. Both the members of the media and the candidates are cannibals like sharks where the first to emerge from their egg eat all the others. Anyone in the lead is immediately made a target to be taken down. In their greed to be the nominee, the candidates have shown themselves to be ruthless rather than honorable; going for cheap personal attacks instead of debating important issues. I used to think that Edwards and Obama had something of worth to offer America. The Senators campaigning should be back at work in the Senate, using their skills in oratory and debate to try to pass some meaningful legislation that will pull us out of the Republican mess in which we are mired or at least shed more light upon important issues. Performing their duties and explaining the process, while giving them a bit of dignity, would also give them an opportunity to educate the citizenry; the majority of which has little grasp of history or civics. I sure hope that elected officials are not drawing their pay while not working.

Clinton voted to give Bush striking rights even though Iran stopped building the bomb in 2003. Hillary is Bush lite..

I love it when Clinton cries and complains. Talk about showing your true colors. What happens when a world leader insults Hillary or America? Will she whine and complain like she does now?

If Hillary is such a strong woman, why does she complain so much? And if she's such a great woman, how come Billy boy was looking pretty much every place but home to fulfill his "desires"?
Shes just another power hungry politician.

A great example of a typical Hillary Clinton WAAAAAAAAH….. factor response. She consistently whines about being attacked by her opponents rather than directly addressing the issues. Hillary, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the fire!! Hillary supporters need to find her a waambulance before it's too late…

Edwards just getting desperate as the caucuses and primaries get near, and play dirty tricks like obama.

Both edwards and obama cannot win on experiences and their political issues. They are simply immature.

Hillary 08.

I think Hillary's poll numbers are declining at the same rate as my respect for her.

Does she really think being a rubber stamp for Bush and Cheney will get her the keys to the White House?

Bush's cowboy rhetoric has led to nothing but foreign policy disasters. What in the he// is our congress doing passing legislation to brand people with names?

Most of you don't remember an uplifting period of American history known as "Camelot." For those that do, an Edwards vote is the answer. For those who are enjoying today's politics of fear-a vote for Clinton will insure you get your fair share of more doom and gloom. If GM can reinvent itself, maybe our government should as well.

I put Hillary and Biden in the same basket. Neither has served their country in uniform and neither would have the guts to do so. That seems to be the case with the other losers also, on both sides of the aisle.

All these folks call living off the largesse of the American public as public service. What a crock! They're not serving, they're reaping the harvest.

Why can't we have the opportunity to elect someone who knows what it means to put your life on the line for your country? There's only one I see at this go-around and that's John McCain, a true American hero and he's going to be my vote.

Again Hillary Clinton is playing the little girl routine but still wants to be seen as tough on the issues. Well first she needs to take a stance on the issues and not waffle about everything from her Iran vote to licenses to illegal immigrants. Hillary Clinton is truly the worst thing that could happen to this country, but we will let the Amercian voters decide that. I call it the 'dumbing of America.'

Of your course your going to be criticized by the way you vote. If she was that worried about it she should not have labeled the revolutionary guard as a terrorist organization.

What does it mean that Barack Obama "missed the Senate vote" ??

What would Vince Foster say if he were alive today?

So let me get this right…Hillary can make as many "outlandish" statements against Barack as she feels necessary but as soon as someone fires at her she states that they went "way too far". She is such a flip-flop. If it wasn't for her last name being Clinton she wouldn't get half the attention she is getting.

I am getting very tired of Senator Clinton's whining every time someone takes issue with her positions. If you declare the Iranian army a terrorist group and we are at war with terror, you are a very short step from declaring war on Iran. This is what John Edwards said and, as is usually the case, he is correct.

"In fact, having designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, we've actually seen some changes in their behavior."

I'm sorry, but I just don't see how labelling another country's military "terrorists" would accomplish anything but increasing tensions between the nations… this just seems like bad (naive?) policy to me… how would we feel if another government officially labeled all our military personel "terrorists?"

Okay, giving Bush a blank check (that he misused) over Iraq was bad but given all the lies Bush/Rove/Fox News was pumpinp out at the time, you can say some were misled. But after being burned so badly by Bush once, there is no excuse for handing Bush more blank checks for disaterous misadventures. Hillary Clinton, as well as every other politician who supported it, deserves every bit of criticism. They need to hammer at this issue more and more.

Clinton shouldn't be concerned about Edwards He is going down.

HC, Lieberman and Republican finally have their chickens coming home to roost! They have been overplaying their hand This just reconfirms why we need a rational leader Biden 08!

I think that Obama is still the only one to say, "Lets use diplomacy and actually TALK with Iran." Every other 'career politician' seems to be prone to labeling, declaring, attacking or shunning Iran instead of actually working to FIX the problem.

I thought Edwards learned his lesson in the last CNN debate in las vegas that negative campaigning was bad for him.

Well, he is a poor learner. He should have quit politics when he lost in 2004.

Clinton is really beginning to get tiresome with her backpedaling and attacks. Obama needs to step up to the plate and become the frontrunner, before she slef destructs her image and gives the General Election to the GOP.

I find it pathetic that these candidates are constantly attacking each other. If they had a good enough campaign, they would not have to keep attacking Hillary. I guess Hillary should take it as a compliment that the other candidates are so threatened by her…

Hillary's firing back at John Edwards and Barrack Obama is the right strategy.

Otherwise, people thought the rumour is correct, and the bad guy keeps on spreading more rumours. You have to expose the bad guy and his dirty trick, so that he can be publicly humiliated.

Same treatment to those sex offenders.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard have been known to help insurgents in Iraq. Iran has been known to pursue nuclear weapons intelligence. The current President had a calculation to the damage that would be dealt to Iran if they blew Israel "off the map". I think Clinton is right in this case, and I am not supporting her. Edwards and Biden want to ignore possible dangers in the world and that could be down right scary. If Iran is seeking only energy, I have no problem. But does anyone really believe that if they are not monitored they will not try to achieve nuclear warheads? I think they are still very dangerous if we ignore them. Don't forget the ideology that we are up against here. Clinton did not ask for war, nor does she want it. In my opinion, she is too soft to lead this country. She seems to have more guts than Biden and Edwards put together though.

It is ashame that Clinton didn't listen to Jim Webb from VA prior to this vote. During his interview on Meet the Press (on NBC), Webb mentioned that (paraphrasing here) that the consesquences of that vote was to declare war on Iran because you called part of their army a terrorist group. The Iran vote was non-binding which is a good thing, but it was done by a part of the U.S. government. It could be seen as the first step to war with Iran or elements of the Iranian Republic. We can't afford that right now. We should have finished with Afganistan first even before starting with Iraq.

On the debate on a whole, it was good to have Mike Gravel there since he hasn't officially bowed out. Respectfully to CNN and other media groups that do these debates, please be clear as to rationale to inviting people on the debates. Back to Mike Gravel; he should bow out after the comments he made. He sounds as if he doesn't understand the reasons why we support Israel and the challeges our only true ally in the region has. They deal with terrorism on such a larger scale (they are smaller than the US) and on a more regular basis. We need to make the Arabs (of all groups) understand that there are reasons why we support the Israelis — it is a fellow democratic country that supports several freedoms that we have like freedom of speech. It is a modern capitalist country that respects the rule of law and we can trade with little to no worry that our intellectual rights will be violated among other reasons

"we've actually seen some changes in their behavior."

The report saying Iran stop in 2003 on the bomb, it does not say that the Revolutionary Guard has stopped helping to kill our soilders in Iraq. So please Hillary, define those positive changes the Revolutionary Guard has made since you signed off on Bush's strike agenda..

The one time I am backing Hillary on an issue.

Trying to turn everything into a personal attack and/or excessive political attack is ridiculous and makes me wonder what kind of president Hillary would be… although I think we can be certain that she would be AT LEAST as divisive as George W. I'll vote for any Democrat but Hillary, and if she's the nominee, then I'll have to see who the Republican nominee is.

What I object to is not that Sen Clinton voted to label Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization – but lying about the implications of such a label – like it or not – we are in a "war on terror" – when you label a country as a "terrorist organization" you kind of open the doors to anything….her supporters will spin this into "they are attacking poor Hillary for taking all sides of an argument" – but omg…wake up

Edwards is right. Labeling another army as a terrorist organization goes over the line. And the terror designation does give the U.S., especially in this climate, another poor excuse to go to war. Clinton keeps back pedaling from her votes, giving me the impression that she thinks she can have her cake and eat it, too.

According to Clinton – no one can question her judgement or policies, but she can plant questioners, verbally abuse an Iowan for asking her to clarify her position, go back to a person's kindergarten to smear him because at age 5 he wanted to be president.

It seems that Edwards is against the vote because "it's what Bush and Cheney wanted".
Regardless of who wanted it, it was the right vote. The Democrats who voted against it are more interested in politics than security. This is very sad.

A couple of months ago, Hillary Clinton had been taking hits or negative campaigns by John Edwards and then Obama, without punching back. She did the positive campaigning, praising fellow democrat candidates and only attacking the republicans.

Edwards and Obama went too far and outlandish, and should be shut up. The truth is that Edwards and Obama are bully. They do not stop until Hillary shut them up, hit their weaknesses, and point out their hyprocricies!

It is ridiculous for people, including Gergen of CNN, that said Hillary should not hit back. It is only fair, and Hillary has been more then fair and patient. Edwards and Obama started the fight, and if they have bloody noses in the end, they deserve them.

There is no way that Edwards and Obama will win Hillary on issues and electability. Therefore, they play dirty.

Shame on Edwards and Obama!

From another news source":

"Clinton said it's clear that pressure on Iran has had an effect — a point disputed by Biden.

"With all due respect with anybody who thinks that pressure brought this about, let's get this straight. In 2003, they stopped their program," Biden said."

——————-

While I do not agree with Biden, nor Clinton, Hillary is closer to reality than the other Monday morning quarterbacks. Has it occurred to these idiots that Iran's termination of their nuclear weapons program in 2003 came as a direct result of seeing a coalition invasion of Iraq because of purported WMD's? You have to ask yourself, "Why did Iran give up their nuclear weapons program?". Evidence seems to show Saddam tried to convince the world, and especially Iran, that he had an active WMD program. So it's logical to assume, Iran thought they were engaged in an arms race with Iraq. Of course, no one will ever give credit to Bush for anything….perhaps history will.

Absurd charges.
-The Iranian Revolutionary Guard is not the official armed forces of Iraq–it is a militia under command of the mullahs.
-The "guard" has been confirmed as: supplying arms, IED's, and insurgent's into Iraq. Without the authority of the Iranian government.
-Clinton wasn't the only senator to recognize that the Iranian guard needed to be sent a stern message–it was pass by a majority vote.
-In the past 60 days–commanders in the field in Iraq confirm a reduction of IED's, insurgent crossings/activity–which, along with the troop surge–would indicate the strategy is working to reduce the Iranian Revolutionary Guard incursions into Iraq.

Do we need a President who doesn't have the courage to make tough calls–even if it means the left wing of their party may be unsupportive. I believe we want a President who makes her decisions on what "she" believes is best to defend the American people and support our military personnel deployed in harms way. I applaud her courage–and shun–Edwards for being a wimp–and Obama (who is a Senator) of neglecting his responsibility to assert due diligence NOW to protect our troops in the realm of US foreign policy.

Dear Hillary,

Neither you or Billy "QuickMilk" Clinton have ever served a day of your life in the military. You don't respect the military, its traditions and cohesive existence with the political infrastructure of this nation. YOU ARE NOT QUALIFIED to speak, mention nor comtemplate whether or not this nation should or should not put our young soldiers, sailors or marines in harms way. I am absolutely baffled as to why anyone would even consider listening to someone who knows nothing about the wole person concept of a soldier and what they and thier family go through each time you open your mouth about the military. Please quit while you are ahead.

Very pleased that Senator Dodd cites at least one vote that he has cast out of many that he has missed while serving as the Senator from my state. What an embarassment he is.

Clinton is the worst with judgment. She aligns herself too closely to the Bush administration. A presidential candidate needs to show what they are made of and not bow to pressure. She has shown that she lacks good judgment, won't take the necessary, very important time to read intelligence reports before making a vote on Iraq, and now voting alongside the Bush administration regarding Iran. Iran is not posing a threat at this time. When you look into her background, you can see how corrupt she is, she would be too polarizing and we would end up with what we already have in Washington. I have always voted Democratic, but there is no way I want Clinton for president. If she is the Democratic nominee, it may just be the first time I vote Republican, or don't vote at all.

By the way, I am white, female, age 48, and leaning much more towards Obama or Biden.

If Edwards is soooo concerned, why did he not stay in public service instead of hightailing it back to a lucrtive law practice? His one term in office hardly gives him the expertise to make such claims. As for Obama, granted he was measured in his response, but as he couldnt even be bothered to be there for the vote, he really should have kept quiet.

Are we sure that Ms. Clinton really is a Democrat?

I would like to caution Sen. Obama- I know you're running a tough race, but you have committed yourself to the job of Senator- I think it would be a great idea if you put a little more effort into dealing with important issues that, so far, seem to be escaping your attention.

Democrats are going to be reluctant to nominate someone they know so little about as Obama and will wonder if the nation is ready for a candidate who has ONLY been a senator for 104 weeks before running for president and missing ALL imprtant votes.(it's not!!). Don;t waste your vote for obama in IOWA,They will also wonder about nominating Edwards, who lost twice in 2004. When the question becomes viability, Hillary is in a league of her own with her ability to bring new female voters to the polls. Not becuase she has a TV show,becuase she is the best candidate running thsi election.

CNN where are all the comments!

I want a Democrat to win next year and lead this country back to what has made it strong in the past. Unfortunately I don't think Hilary is the person to do that, Mr. Edwards just called her out on what she has voted for and she doesn't like it. If she can't stand up to GBush and his crownies what makes you think she has enough backbone for the middle east and other hotspots in the word.

"I understand politics, and I understand making outlandish political charges,…"

It's most likely Hillary will not have to convince anyone of the validity of that statement.

"…but this really goes way too far,"

When another candidate (or anyone) confronts/questions her on her political record/position, it's an 'outrageous' attack that's out of bounds. This is her classic whine first, answer second response to critisism.

I find it funny how when someone makes a truthful comment about Hiliary no matter how difficult, she comes back with the "I'm being picked on card". It's time she grows up and respect the fact, she's not the right candidate for President. Edwards and her other candidates is only stating the truth about her.

OT-but,you know I had HEARD these persistent rumors that Kiran Chetry was one of the most beautiful, honest and hard working Cnn reporters and today I discovered THEY WERE TRUE.Thank you CNN for being the CLASSY NEWS NETWORK I SHOULD HAVE KNOWN YOU'D BE. I apologize for jumping to conclusion that you'd show these nasty rumors about Obama without making sure you'd show THEY WERE FALSE.
THANK YOU CNN.

Easy John, don't shoot yourself in the shorts. I know you would like to have a casbinet post in the Clinton adminstration, but this crap ain't good for party unity.

Why was Clinton the ONLY democrat running for President to support it? I really wish the media would start posting the portion of the Kyl-Lieberman text that is up for question:

(2) that it is a vital national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq, including by overwhelming, subverting, or co-opting institutions of the legitimate Government of Iraq;

(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 paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies;

Pay special attention to points 3 and 4. "Combat, contain, and roll back" is 3 sure sounds language designed to tie Iraq's troop levels to Iran's perceived involvement.

And point 4 expands it to support NOT JUST economic sanctions and diplomacy, as Clinton continually claims, but also MILITARY INSTRUMENTS.

Is that REALLY the kind of language you want to use with a President that is beating the Iran war drums? Didn't she learn from Iraq? She even used the SAME argument: In Iraq, she claims to have voted for better inspections and more diplomacy. We see how that worked out. The bill clearly supports military actions against the Iranian government. It's plain as day when you read it for yourself.

To: John Edwards, You had my vote since 2004, your hungry and passionate to get out there and help this country, unlike lazy obama, STOP the Hillary attacks they make you appear as childish as obama. Why not take a look at his record… well…that is, if you can find a political record for him…ask at Harpo productions.

Obviously these ole boys do not have a clue on the security threat bush and Chaney has caused our great country, we are at odds with most every large country, they will not talk to bush anymore, because he’s daddies spoiled little boy who the weak republicans gave him his way for the last seven years and now they are running and hiding from him. EACH republican shares the blame as bush and Chaney do for the state of this great country. The more obama speaks the more I hear a republican…

It’s also obvious from the last debate that John Edwards is fighting with anything he can think of, which we need a fighter; he’s only attacking Hillary though? As the good ole boys are sticking together, is he scared of oprah and obama? The reason you’re not hearing allot of negative about obama because OBAMA IS TOO INEXPERIENCED, there is no history, other than he doesn’t show up for work, he's missed almost all important senate votes? We already had a president the played instead of worked, look at this mess…What’s has this guy been doing? now he thinks he can use Oprah’s money to buy the Presidency? HE IS CRAZY as she is…

After recent weeks and the personal attacks, I strongly now see the best choice and my vote will go to CLINTON, we need her contacts as well as the great relationships President Clinton has with other countries and experience, to work together so that other counties will share the bill and world security. We do not have time to play politics with the likes of obama and rest of these guys…
John Edwards would be an outstanding VP for Hillary

CLINTON 2008, the true SMART choice

Poor Poor Edwards – don't you get it. No one cares what you say. You're so far behind I would just hang it up and go home. We stand strong behind and Clinton. We will continue to do until this lady gets to the whitehouse. You should be the one calling the kettle black.

" I understand politics and I understand making outlandish political charges, "

Kind of sums it up.

Go Obama !
I too wanted to be President when in the third grade. Shame on us for having dreams.

Clinton voted for the authorization to give carte blanche to Bush to do whatever he wanted vis a vis Iran and stating that the Revolutionary Guards are a terrorist organization. Now we find out Iran is not, repeat not, building nuclear weapons.

Clinton's purported lead in the polls would stop evaporating if she would own up to her actions and stop trying to blame others when she is on the wrong side of an issue. Iowa and New Hampshire have seen the most of her and it's beginning to show in the polls.

Fact is that Clinton has only six plus years of experience in elective office no matter what she says. Prior to that being First Lady in D.C. and Arkansas entailed ceremonial duties and being shown what hosts in foreign countries wanted her see. This forms no basis for intelligent discussion and voting on foreign and domestic policy issues as also evidenced by her "Harry and Louise" health care plan that bombed.

She was wrong on Iraq, wrong on Iran and definately wrong when Edwards and the other candidates point this out. Macbeth is back as "the lady doth protest too much". Do we really need this type of President after eight years of Bush? Episodes like the above state clearly, no!

Can we have someone keep track of which candidate whines the least in the campaign, on both sides? Is this a vital character trait for successful candidacies ? Of the leading pols, Huckabee and Obama seem to whine the least, IMMHO. I hope they are the last two standing.

Has Obama participated in ANY Senate votes? does he even show up? this guy cant even do the job he is currently elected in, how can anyone think he could handle the Presidency! Vote for Clinton and let obama continue to play games and let Oprah lead him by the nose…
ARE WE SURE OBAMA ISNT A REPUBLICIAN?

John Edwards and Obab Winphrey both has been doing nothing but attacking Hillary! BECAUSE SHE IS WINNING AND IS THE BEST CHOICE FOR PRESIDENT IN 2008

Its a shame that these politicians like obama and Edwards ONLY use negative politics, haven’t hey all learned ye, that We the voters are sick and tired of bashing each other, WE WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOUR GONIOGN TO DO TO SDAVE THIS GRET COUTRY FROM THE SERIOUS MESS OUR ENEMIES BUSH/CHANEY HAVE MADE…

WE DO CARE WHAT HAPPENED YEARS AGO,
It’s obvious to everyone information provided from our president is what made politicians agree with him… NOW NO ONE IN THEIS WORLD WOULD BELEIVE GEORE BUSH!

HE IS SELLING AMERICA! IMPEACH BUSH AND CHANEY

The person who went way too far was Hillary, supporting Bush's agenda in the Middle East by voting for Kyl-Lieberman. She simply doesn't learn from mistakes like her Iraq vote, and instead follows them up by repeating the mistake such as this vote on Iran.

So much for experience.

It is amazing that a person with no political public forum such as being a senator can make a comment about another person who currently holds a
position in the U.S. Senate. I guess that He doesn't get it. The safety of our Troops are more Important than the
destination of that Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. This reminds me Of Jimmy Carter with the we lost speech back in the 70's. But what happen next We elected Ronald Reagan and we won the cold war because we wouldn't flinch. Hey John, Who are you? Jimmy Carter or FDR? Jimmy Carter is the one who laid the ground work for the modern terrorist attacking America today. FDR led America during a great Challenges of that time. By setting of programs to help Americans not give but to help. The leadership needs to realize that strong America will help stabilize the world while a weak America will only lead to unrest and more war. Thank you for your time.

I guess it doesn't matter to these clowns that Iran manufactures RFP's that kill Americans in Iraq and trains insurgents to kill Americans in Iraq.

One has to wonder how they would handle a direct attack on America? They'd probably ask to negotiate our terms of surrender to the terrorist organization/country that attacked us.

On the heels of the Dems proposed trillion dollar tax increase, this story only reinforces the truth that Democrats continue to be soft on defense, weak on protecting our country, and pro-tax.

If any of you out there actually believe the standard Democrat line that they will only raise taxes on the "rich", then you really are living in some kind of fantasy.

Good luck in 2008 Dems. Hope you enjoy another eight years of Republican leadership in the White House.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard IS a terrorist organization, in that they furnish personnel, arms and instruction to Iraqi insurgents. That being said, I do NOT see the Senate vote as allowing and all out declaration of war on Iran as loser Edwards suggests. Clinton was right…he went "way to far".

Diplomatic discussion, sanctions (by a weak and corrupt United Nations) will do more good than saber-rattling rhetoric….once we get that accomplish-nothing Secretary of State, Condy Rice out of the picture.

At least Osama Obama had the intelligence (for once) to keep his mouth shut, since he was too busy playing kissy-face to even show up to vote on the issue. Even his 'limited' response was telling…"that we should structure, in some way, our forces in Iraq with the goal of blunting Iranian influence in Iraq." And just exactly HOW would you do that, Mr. Perfect-for-the-Job? Infuse MORE troops? 'Structure' them shoulder-to-shoulder along the Iraq-Iran border to keep anyone from sneaking in? Please…….

Edwards is right. Clinton is way too near Bush. I consider as her usual pandering to all sides of an issue, pandering to Republicans and a shame to the democratic balance of power in america

Democrats act as check on GOP inslaught likewise vice versa but when you have a Democrat voting and acting like a GOP its bad for democracy in america

Like usual Dennis Kucinich's past votes like the one against trade with China (he's the only candidate that knew it'd be a bad idea) made him look a lot better than the other candidates, but CNN doesn't even give him a mention.

It's not fair for media to play such a part in who wins the nomination.

Please start playing fair CNN. the American people deserve it.

Thank you.

The fact is Edwards (and others) are acting as if the Iranian Guard is not an agent of terror and that they have nothing to do with attacking our troops in Iraq. They are wrong. They might disagree about Hillary's vote on the bill but they are taking too far by implying that the IRG is not a threat to US troops in Iraq or the Middle East as a whole. Hillary should continue to show how ridiculous this is and call Edwards and Obama out on this every chance she gets.

Don't fear Iran's nuclear agenda; just remove the possiblity of hostilities against its targets.

–

Mid East unity

Includes:

Afghanistan, Bahrain, Druze, Egypt, Galilee, Gaza, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Judea, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Syria, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, the West Bank.

Changes of State:

-Egypt leases the south of the Sinai to preserve the name: Israel.
-Present day Israel is broken into five smaller Nations: Judea, Galilee, Gaza, the West Bank, and Palestine, while the sixth, Druze, becomes part of Syria.

–

Added functions

Capitals:
Jerusalem: City of State unity (Separate from the ‘provincial’ Nationality)
Mecca: International
Damascus: City of Cities
Baghdad: Federal

Jerusalem acts as the meeting place of religion, housing the theocratic majority and allowing the flow of religious ideologies between the States which are found either (nationally) provincially separated or united.

Mecca is the International Capital, concerning all international diplomatic business of the unity (such as stronger united powers of trade negotiations). The (Nations) provinces combine force with a few duly appointed personnel.

Damascus is the central city for all of the city mayors in the unity.

Baghdad is the meeting place for the (National) Provincial representatives provided by each State listed under the National constitution, and deals with the internal logistics of federal legislation (rules of infrastructure…)

The Supreme judicial benches will require a capital, as will the Unity Water Bureau.

No position like that of President or Commander in chief exists in the Unity, and the business practices of the individual (nations) provinces are not limited unless so expressed under a chartered agreement of a United Diplomatic front. (Baghdad is welcome to the release the title as the federal Capital with that of the Unity Water Bureau (renaming the UWB-Babylon).) The Federal parliament which is likened to a Senate does not allow partisanship unless the member is from a theocratic majority State.

Each nation is required to have a capital center for Unity Business and each State should have at least one building.

–

Joint unions:

Turkey becomes a joint between The Unity and the European confederacy, it a partner and member of both.

The Sinai State of Israel is the joint between The Unity and the United States. The Sinai Israel is permanent, taken as a ‘Jewish’ State by bargained price and held to such under an infinite contract of a paid tribute to its Mother Egypt. (Thou shall not kill, and so one cannot raise a sword against thy neighbor and still remain lawfully under a contract of God.)

–

The theocratic side of the Unity finds a universal capital in Jerusalem; this includes the Kurds. (Two Northern Iraq States shall be renamed Kurdistan but will remain under the (national) Provincial Iraqi government.)

Each Nation in the unity will be free to set its own guidelines, as each (nation) province will individually provide how its States are freed to, as States, individually set its own laws and governances as to how that individual State will fulfill and adhere to the rightful religious majority. Should a majority of that (nationally) provincially set requirement not be found in any state (as three fifths, or as 99 percent, or – as each (nation) province may individually set forth…): that State will fall to the general rules of the parent (nation) province and the regulations of religious cooperation found under the Jerusalem capital compact (so usually falling to a Moses-typical philosophy).

Freedoms of travel is not to restricted by any individual State, and a general equality of lawful proceeding should be found between all the (nations) provinces, but laws may vary greatly between the Unity Nations and their States as they have so found. The (national) provincial governments will always hold final powers over both the Unity and their individual inner States, accept when they interfere with the ratified Unity Constitution (Still to be drafted); (nations) provinces can not re-set the (national) provincial requirement for a religious majority when it comes to be threatened by such a change. (Sinai Israel is the exception to the Provincial States, as it is granted the equal right of individuality to a province of the Unity but remains a State under Egypt; should the New Israel default in its tribute Egypt may repossess the land and revise its listed States in the Unity constitution.)

National laws found pre-set and listed in the Constitution can not be overridden by a theocratic majority.

The purpose of Unity is to provide, create, and exchange fresh water between the Nations, so to eliminate the feel of the Desert in any urban area which is found to be greater than the size of a village. People in community must have life always around them.

Unity is the Nation, the Nations become the Provinces/Territories, the Provinces have States, and the States have districts; while Territories have Regions.

Mid East unity (revised)

Includes:

Afghanistan, Bahrain, Druze, Egypt, Galilee, Gaza, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Judea, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Syria, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, the West Bank.

Changes of State:

-Egypt leases the south of the Sinai to preserve the name: Israel.
-Present day Israel is broken into five smaller Nations: Judea, Galilee, Gaza, the West Bank, and Palestine, while the sixth, Druze, becomes part of Syria.

–

Added functions

Capitals:
Jerusalem: City of State unity (Separate from the ‘provincial’ Nationality)
Mecca: International
Damascus: City of Cities
Baghdad: Federal

Jerusalem acts as the meeting place of religion, housing the theocratic majority and allowing the flow of religious ideologies between the States which are found either (nationally) provincially separated or united.

Mecca is the International Capital, concerning all international diplomatic business of the unity (such as stronger united powers of trade negotiations). The (Nations) provinces combine force with a few duly appointed personnel.

Damascus is the central city for all of the city mayors in the unity.

Baghdad is the meeting place for the (National) Provincial representatives provided by each State listed under the National constitution, and deals with the internal logistics of federal legislation (rules of infrastructure…)

The Supreme judicial benches will require a capital, as will the Unity Water Bureau.

No position like that of President or Commander in chief exists in the Unity, and the business practices of the individual (nations) provinces are not limited unless so expressed under a chartered agreement of a United Diplomatic front. (Baghdad is welcome to the release the title as the federal Capital with that of the Unity Water Bureau (renaming the UWB-Babylon).) The Federal parliament which is likened to a Senate does not allow partisanship unless the member is from a theocratic majority State.

Each nation is required to have a capital center for Unity Business and each State should have at least one building.

–

Joint unions:

Turkey becomes a joint between The Unity and the European confederacy, it a partner and member of both.

The Sinai State of Israel is the joint between The Unity and the United States. The Sinai Israel is permanent, taken as a ‘Jewish’ State by bargained price and held to such under an infinite contract of a paid tribute to its Mother Egypt.

–

The theocratic side of the Unity finds a universal capital in Jerusalem; this includes the Kurds. (Two Northern Iraq States shall be renamed Kurdistan but will remain under the (national) Provincial Iraqi government.)

Each Nation in the unity will be free to set its own guidelines, as each (nation) province will individually provide how its States are freed to, as States, individually set its own laws and governances as to how that individual State will fulfill and adhere to the rightful religious majority. Should a majority of that (nationally) provincially set requirement not be found in any state (as three fifths, or as 99 percent, or – as each (nation) province may individually set forth…): that State will fall to the general rules of the parent (nation) province and the regulations of religious cooperation found under the Jerusalem capital compact (so usually falling to a Moses-typical philosophy).

Freedoms of travel is not to restricted by any individual State, and a general equality of lawful proceeding should be found between all the (nations) provinces, but laws may vary greatly between the Unity Nations and their States as they have so found. The (national) provincial governments will always hold final powers over both the Unity and their individual inner States, accept when they interfere with the ratified Unity Constitution (Still to be drafted); (nations) provinces can not re-set the (national) provincial requirement for a religious majority when it comes to be threatened by such a change. (Sinai Israel is the exception to the Provincial States, as it is granted the equal right of individuality to a province of the Unity but remains a State under Egypt; should the New Israel default in its tribute Egypt may repossess the land and revise its listed States in the Unity constitution.)

National laws found pre-set and listed in the Constitution can not be overridden by a theocratic majority.

The purpose of Unity is to provide, create, and exchange fresh water between the Nations, so to eliminate the feel of the Desert in any urban area which is found to be greater than the size of a village. People in community must have life always around them.

Unity is the Nation, the Nations become the Provinces/Territories, the Provinces have States, and the States have districts; while Territories have Regions.

The hebrew council in Jerusalem and the constitutional compacts made by these States will keep Judea, Galilee, and Sinai together as if one.

With the Sunni re-defined as business men, infrastructural law-makers, and Statesmans; and, with the Shi'a re-defined as teachers, Religious lawful interpreters, and minor judges…

Hillary an American Hater 911 Co-conspirator

It was a wrong vote for 2 simple reasons.

1) We don't need to extend bush's leash US forces already had complete authority to engage any forces smuggling arms inside Iraq.

2) It harms US National Security by setting the precedent that a state actor supplying weapons to surrogates for use in another nation is terrorism.

can we say US support of taliban vs USSR, Iran/Contra, Guatemala, School of the America's, Angola and I could go on. We kind of have a habit of doing that exact thing and sometimes people we have trained and supplied are known for even dare I say it harming civilians in horrible ways.

What about all the arm's israel supplies around the world?

There is a reason the classic definition of terrorism was violence by non state actors on civilian populations for a political purpose. We have a habit of funding and supporting non state actors against governments we find distasteful and we should not be setting any semblance of legal precedent that that is terrorism allowing a legal seizing of assets in the nation impacted under cover of justification under law which we would have created.

70+ senators didn't get it including the one who claims to be ready to make decisions on day one. Would those be the right decisions hillary?

Declaring a state actor a terrorist group was a horrible horrible blunder.

The mistake is about more than enabling a rush to war as the president is arguably entitled to act under his police power against terrorists. It's about potential long term negatives to how we have used proxy force to accomplish our national security goals without all out war.

Keeping clear lines between terrorism and state actors is in our national security interests. Short term and long.

I don't see how designating an organization as a terrorist organization opens the way for an attack against Iran.
We have already declared Hamas and Hezbala terrorist organizations and have not attacked Iran or Syria.
And who knows how you have voted if you were in the Senate. Maybe you would have done what Obama did, not show up. If this was such a critical vote, one would think Obama would have had his vote counted.

"Sen. Barack Obama, who missed the Senate vote…"

How many times has this phrase been used?

Did your kids or grandkids go to fight in Afghanistan or Iraq?

If they missed the opportunity, now they might have a second chance!

Step right up, folks, and volunteer the remaining young'uns in your family to go into Iran for Bush's legacy.

Insanity!

What exactly does Bush want? What is he working up to? Why the speech if he has no plans?

Our Senator Clinton needs to take a lesson in diplomacy from senior statesman Congressman Ron Paul.

We need to be try talking to people around the world rather than meddling in their affairs.

The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again.

Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries.

We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women.

We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home.

No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.

Another ding for Hillary. Her slick general election move in supporting the Iran resolution has come back to bite her. Good for Edwards for not letting her off the hook.

P.S. and if the "Man" Kiran Chetry who "says" she's a woman breathlessly says that rumors persist that Obama is a Muslim despite the fact that he "says" he isn't WITHOUT INCLUDING THE FACT THAT'S IT'S BECAUSE IT'S TRUE HE IS NOT A MUSLIM THEN IT WILL BE THE LAST TIME I WATCH HER DISINGENIOUS NEWS SHOW YOU CAN BETCHA.
CNN-CRAZY NEWS NETWORK

Of course he went too far. It's all rhetoric. The fact is, the resolution DOES NOT prompt ANYONE to go to war. It's an unnecessary resolution (and non-binding) essentially stating that the U.S. forces will defend themselves against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (in Iraq) — which our armed forces would do anyway. You know, sometimes politics needs to be set aside for mandates of security. Frankly, Biden and Dodd took the politically easy way out by voting "no". I'm not sure what Obama was thinking by missing the vote, except maybe he didn't think it was particulary important at the time (because it was non-binding). In addition, also note that the NIE report on Iranian nuclear weapons is a completely different issue versus the Kly-Lieberman resolution; one (NIE) speaks of nuclear arms, the other (Kyl-Lieberman) speaks of the Iranian National Guard.

No foul. Senator Clinton voted to label an Iranian military agency as a "terrorist" organization (with WMD!), when we are, according to her own overblown rhetoric, in the middle of a declared "war on global terror." Logically, therefore, her vote was, as Joseph Lieberman essentially conceded in promoting his amendment, tantamount to a declaration that the U.S. is prepared to go to war against Iran.

Just as with her vote to authorize the Iraq invasion, she cast this vote with a manipulative eye on the general election– and she has shown herself to be a bungler when it comes to foreign affairs. Worse, she is a bungler due to cynical political calculations.

She also protests too much about being criticized in view of her barrage of ridiculous attacks against Obama in recent weeks.

I wonder if she dreamed of being a calculating war hawk when she was in kindergarten. Sorry, another ludicrous cheap shot.

I love how eager the CNN Ticker's staff always is to publish Hillary Clinton's rebuttals for her.

By saying that "having designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, we've actually seen some changes in their behavior,
Hillary clearly showed once again that she did not read the NIE yet again before commenting or simply lacks in judgement.
The U.S. NIE found that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program way back in the fall of 2003 not after the recent vote in congress. Connecting these two is rather too naive!

im sure you'll have all the billary puppets rushing to agree and trash Edwards, but i don't think what Edwards said was untrue or a personal attack… it is absolutely true. Disagreeing with Edwards based on what we've found out lately doesn't make sense. Score one for Edwards here.

Hahha. You old clown, Hillary. "I understand politics, and I understand making outlandish political charges." You sure do. Wow, and you just admitted it, too.

Advocacy? Ever heard of a wet operation? We are already in Iran. U.S.military intelligence is planning for war, so we are on the ground in someway or another. Its wet intel because our government can disavow such operations are taking place "officially". Even if a embedded journalist in Iraq were to find out of such things it would never make the press, its classified. Iran is light up right now by spooks with laser designators. Deal with it.

Looks like more egg on your face Shillary. Spare us your sanctimonious drivel. Shillary is wrong…yet again….and she tries to spin. Kudos to edwards and obama who accurately point out her weaknesses. The arrogant Shillary is slowly realizing there is no coronation.

Don't go away mad Shillary……just go away.

Are these campaigners trying to be Commedians or Presidential Candidates. Is is hard to tell the difference.

Having a high profile Democrat like Hillary break from the party's hard-line stance that Bush is always wrong is good news for anyone who wants to see both parties cooperate. It's too bad the rest of her party thinks their ticket to power is by destroying our President's credibility.

I listened to this debate and I was impressed with Joe Biden's response to Hillary Clinton's comment on a "rush to war". I have been in Biden's camp for about two months now, but each time I hear him debate the other Democratic hopefuls my decision to support him is firmly reinforced.

So Bush lied about Iran as well as Iraq. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

Let's see. Clinton is the ONLY candidate that got fooled twice. Shame on you Senator Clinton.

from CNN: "Sen. Joe Biden on Tuesday was incredulous over President Bush's statement that he learned only last week that a recent intelligence estimate says Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003. 'If that's true … he's one of the most incompetent presidents in modern American history.' Biden said."

Well c'mon, Sen. Biden – we already KNOW he's the most incompetent president in modern history. In fact, time may prove him to be most incompetent citizen to hold that office EVER. He will certainly be one of the most disliked and disrespected.

Why was Clinton the only candidate to support this Kyl-Lieberman amendment. Why did everyone else realize that Bush was not to be trusted. Now we find that Bush was telling us about Iran actively pursuing nuclear weapons when he already knew this was not true. Bush fooled Clinton twice. What is it? Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me? Shame on you Senator Clinton.

I think I hear a baby crying. What will Hillary say when she's President and some opposition leader from another country derails her? "Oh, he went to far and got personal." As if anyone will care about her feelings.

Newsflash Hillary: You voted, now you get to defend the vote. Everyone's got to do it.

If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. This is exactly what she played to with her campaign and now she doesn't like it.

Welcome to the Big Leagues, Hill.

Vote Integrity.
Vote Fresh.
Vote Obama.

Clinton brings up something on Obama going all the way back to kindergarten, but it's Edwards that went too far.

Hillary is not only the most out of touch Democratic candidate, she might be one of the most out of touch people in this country…period!

This is the same candidate that thinks $97k is middle class, yet only 6% of the population makes more than that. Yeah, good luck with that in Iowa, Hillary.

She is NOT a part of the same Democratic Party that I am!

Obama '08

Thank God we have someone not willing to place more American lives in danger. Go Senator Clinton, thank you for looking out for our country's best interests.

the biggest reason why there is such deep confusion and chaos continuing to unfold in this campaign about all of the elements of iraq, iran and terrorism in general…. relates directly to the fact that bush's undescribable, "words-unfindable",disasterous trail of blistering incompetence have made it sooo hard to tell up from down when it comes to our analysis of anything related to fighting terrorism…
this prez will go down in history as the guy who created the most world tension and took us screaming down the highway to hell and closer to its gates than any other american leader.

HOW the HECK does a country deal with a prez who does nothing but create endless,endless headaches, for BOTH parties??

let me have that Constitution..and a PEN please!…"edit: all republicans will be shackled on election day from this day forward".

Of course you omit anything Kunich contributed to the debate..

I find some of these people hypocritical to be judging Clinton now when they had previously held similar views. I think the most hypocritical is Obama since he didn't even bother to show up for the vote just to evade any responsibility, and to pander to the extreme liberal part of the democratic party in his quest for the primaries. In fact, he had previously cosponsored legislation in April to call the Iranian Revolutionary Guard just that, a terrorist organization. This is an excerpt from Lee Feinstein's article which was published last week:

"Similarly, Senator Obama's campaign contends he "stood up against the march to war with Iran." They ignore the fact that Hillary went to the Senate floor last February long before Senator Obama to warn the Bush administration that they could not take any military action without congressional approval. She co-sponsored legislation with Senator Webb that denies the administration any funds for military action against Iran. And she has joined with Senator Durbin on a resolution that denies the President any unilateral authority to use force against Iran.

Senator Obama has also criticized Senator Clinton's support for a resolution urging the Bush administration to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. But Senator Obama also supports designating the Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization. In fact, Senator Obama cosponsored legislation in April that called on the Secretary of State to do exactly that. While Senator Obama says he opposed this resolution, in truth, he did not cast a vote. He missed the vote. He said nothing to indicate that he opposed this legislation before the vote. He was silent at a Presidential Debate that took place on the very day the vote was cast."

JUST GOES TO SHOW THE HYPOCRISY. AT LEAST HILLARY STANDS UP FOR WHAT SHE BELIEVES IN, WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH HER OR NOT.

Clinton fading, Obama temporarily ascendant, with Edwards awaiting Obama's inevitable fade, and timing his closing arguments for the maximum effect on us, the jury. He's a far better lawyer and will be a far better President than the others.

And the end result is that Joe Biden reaffirms he has absolutely no guts and believes in acquiescing rather than fighting for our freedoms. How did he get elected to the Senate? He isn't worthy of even running for the Presidency.

Obama and Edwards need to stop trying to gain traction by being less than honest about Hillary. They do go too far. It's absurd.

I'm going to say it for myself and for all of you who just can't get the same phrase out of their mouths.

"I'm not going to vote for Ms. Clinton because she is woman"

There! God I feel better!

Finally, I have reclaimed my manhood!

You need to say it as well if you want to be healed!

I'm going to say it for myself and for all of you who just can't get the same phrase out of their mouths.

"I'm not going to vote for Ms. Clinton because she is woman"

There! God I feel better!

Finally, I have reclaimed my manhood!

You need to say it as well if you want to be healed!

Good on you John. Not sure you'll end up the nomination, but she deserves this criticism for her vote to continue this Bush/Cheney fear tactic. She is backing too many old ideas for my liking.

OK TRUST IRAN AND WE SIT ON OUR DUFF. WAIT AND SEE LIKE THE OLD OSTRAGE!! HEAD IN S
AND~~

Call her out, Senator Edwards…You're speaking the truth and it is well past time for America to WAKE UP!!!

Go John Go…All the way to OUR White House!

These attacks really are going "too far". Edwards needs to lay off Clinton and focus on his bid for President. This makes Democrats look really bad when the candidates are attacking each other. Save it for the General election and whoever the nominee may be, they can go full out on the Republican!

HILLARY 08!

People should pay attention to Joe Bidden. No Presidential candidate has a plan for the next United States President compared to Joe Bidden. I totally agree with him on his plans for the United States. We must not make the upcoming election a popularity contest. The MOST Qualified candidate must be elected.I think Joe sould be more strong on illegal immigration. Anmesty is not the answer. If you want to become an American citizen, do it the right way. Paul–Nathrop, Co

There she goes again, first voting to go to war with Iraq, then voting to name a democratic middle eastern nation's military "terrorists" for supposedly attacking our military in Iraq (who shouldn't be there in the first place). Hillary is a liability, and we can't afford to make more enemies. Why not try dialogue and diplomacy Hillary? you might see that it works better than you'd imagine.

Are you guys seriously worried about "poor Hillary"? Once again, Edwards states the facts objectively and CNN comes to Clinton's defense. This is a MAJOR difference between the candidates. CNN knows that Iowan's have a distate for "mudslinging". In charachterizing it as such, CNN knows that it is effecting the election, not just reporting. Edwards was forceful in his stating his disagreement with Clinton. Read the transcript, listen to the NPR debate.

So every Candidate running for 08 opposed this vote with the exception of Hillary. Some possible reasons for Hillary’s, case of yet another bad judgment.

1. Hillary having been read the Republican play book 2008, which was for Republicans to run on Fear and an attack on Iran.

2. Hillary having knowledge of this, once again (as she did with Iraq) wanted to come out on the strong side and be able to mute any Republican attack on her if she was the Democratic Candidate in the General election. She wanted to show she is not weak on foreign policy. So she voted for KY-Liberman.

3. Hillary put Hilary’s Presidential ambitions ahead on the American People and our International standing in the World once again (she also did with Iraq).

4. Hillary’s JUDGMENT is just NOT correct and does not provide us with the right candidate for 2008.

Too far? In what way is calling her on the hypocrisy inherent in her anti-war rhetoric going to far? Was he being sexist or something? Was he piling on? Perhaps Bill could take the podium for a moment and blame the media for the whole mess….

Senator Clinton, it is about that you should set the record straight. It is ridiculous keeping receiving punches and false accusations from John Edwards or Barrack Obama.

There should not be any more right wing playbood mud sling from JOhn Edwards any more. For a few weeks, I thought Edwards learned his lesson from the last CNN debate.

Edwards is a joke. Someone make him disappear.

Hillary all the way! Let's take back the White House!

"I understand making outlandish political charges." – Hillary Clinton

Hahahahaa.. what else needs to be said about this lady.

Did you know that Dennis Kucinich was in the NPR Debate? Are you crazy? I listened to the debate and it was Dennis Kucinich who called them on their Iran position. Wow, this is really amazing. Now I know it's over.

Of course we don't want to give Bush any power to go to war because he abuses his power, at the same time we still have to protect ourselves, and this group is a problem.

Hillary has my vote!

Edwards "offend no one" strategy has already been tried by Jimmy Carter and is directly responsible for the state of the Middle East today. They are all quasi-socialists with no real foreign policy other than roll over and play nice with those who want to kill us. Been tired and failed, what we are doing now is working. We haven't been attacked since 9/11. Clinton had numerous attacks and this is when the rest of the world "loved us".

H. Clinton will put us into war if she becomes president. You can not be wrong twin on the same issue. "No rush into war?" WE DO NOT WANT NO MORE WAR! And thats what you call experience?
She is so fake.

Regardless of what Clinton says she was voting for or against when she cast her vote to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, she is once again proving her predilection for war and confrontation.

She DID vote to invade Iraq; no matter how many ways she finds to dance around it, her "yea" vote is in the record.

What's more troubling about Clinton's vote, though, is that it is offers further evidence of her political leanings. It's one more instance of lining up behind the Shrub, Cheney and their misguided, Constitution-ripping foreign policy.

Oh my is Mrs. "Untouchable" crying again??? It's becoming a bit redundant don't you think?