SO, SORRY ABDUL OBAMA.
BUT, YOU WILL NOT HAVE MY VOTE!!!!!!

NOT NOW, NOT EVER!!!!

Time for a new face with new politics. NWO

A wise man once told me that there are two kinds of expeience. First there is the person who has been in a job 25 years, but has one year of experience repeated 25 times. Then, there is the person who has 25 years of experience, and who learns and changes with each year.
Hillary seems to fit the first category. Obama may fit the second.

Obama got it right on this issue. You've got to talk to your enemies. The alternative to communication is war. Even though Richard Nixon is a bad president, his historical trip to China opened the door between the two countries and that ranked as his biggest accomplishment in office.

I don't think inexperience is always a bad thing.  I said inexperience not stupidity.  As long as the person coming into the job is smart, thoughtful, creative, and willing to stand up and do what is right.  Sometimes a fresh take on things is what is needed to achieve great things!  Obama my not have presidential experience but then neither does Hillary!

Hillary talks and has the same ideas as Bush, it's disgusting.  Obama won that question.  He won the entire debate and will win the presidency.

Joe Justice - You recognized that they came from Clinton, didn't you?  Clearly Mark just forgot to add the "" and attribute it to someone.  You never make a mistake when you are writing something?

To Frank, Tulsa, OK:

You raise good points. I agree entirely that the president should delegate some of his responsbilities. However, I feel that diplomacy would work best if the leaders were able to sit down and talk, rather than sending token delegates. Plus, direct contact between leaders prevents misunderstandings. If delegates' conversations lose their meaning when reporting back to the president, all diplomacy will fail. I'm just trying to cover all bases.

You can say whatever you want to catch people's vote, but when you are really won the game then you have to face all the problems for real.

No money no honey! When you promise everything to us, where are you going to get money? How will you go to clean up George Bush's mass? You may not like Clinton, but are you sure Obama can do it without any really experiece.

Different time, same story. Choose the lesser of two evils.

Obama is nasty! But aren't all politicians?
This could really hurt his "clean" image.

I hated Republican's tactics of attacking people who disagree with them. Is Obama learning from Karl Rove's playbook?

How about a Edwards/Obama ticket?

Pls...pls Barack Obama..do me o e favor. Its a personal favor. I am begging u. Pls help me nail McCain and Romney (that androidic sob) just as u r nailing her.
McCain is already a hurt soul..so turn him over gently but can u quickly wipe that smile off Romney's face?.
Once again, I am pleading..so do it quick. I am waiting already.

Obama is right.  Hillary is wrong.

The fact that she voted for the war does NOT hurt her chances.  What does hurt her chances is that she remains completely hypocritical about the issue.

I'm glad she voted for it.  The fact that all the voters still fall for the "Dog ate my homework" is something Obama is trying to count on...

Billary Clinton is a pandering, crooked snake-in-the grass just like her hubby that she rode all the way to her present position.  She accomplished nothing in her 8-yr attempt at healthcare reform.  

For those that think highly of Obama because he voted against the war - you might want to consider how this man has voted on other issues.  His voting record is some 80% more liberal than his Democratic party counterparts.  That is so liberal even Ted Kennedy is going "whoa!"

You want a Socialist USA?  Vote Obama.  You want a crook? Vote for Billary. She had lessons from one of the greatest liars and crooks of all time.

Why do we continually get distracted by the symptoms (i.e. snippets of comments/behaviors) while failing to see the core problem with our democratic system.  Our number one issue to drive change must be addressing the public's demonstrated inability to think critically about issues independently.  We have become a society too dependent upon the media and politicians spoon-fed delivery of what is considered "news worthy".  A prime example would be the bandwagon of right-wing Christians who rushed to support Bush after he vocalizing his faith.  Why, by just saying you’re a Christian do you win over so many voters who choose not to assess his 'Christianity' based on his actions rather than his words.  Think we have a similar situation here - actions speak louder than words - just ask the majority of Bush supporters (Christian or not) who have now found themselves no longer supporting this great man who claimed to have been called to his position by God.  

How did Hillary do with health care reform ?
Her bungling and incompetence set back hearth care reform for 15 years !!
Thanks to Hillary, we have a crumbling, unfair and dysfunctional health care system.

How well did Hillary do building coalitions for health care reform ?
How well did Hillary do enacting legislation ?
Boy !! Her experience will help her hit the ground (crashing, not running) !!

Hillary, the experienced Washington insider !!

Krista  H. there is no need for racism, name mongering and postering. The name is Barack Obama. It does not mean that he is a muslim and even if he is what is wrong with that? Dont be naive and grow up!!!

What don't so many of you get about this?

You're telling me you want our president to meet with the likes of Hugo Chavez-the guy who called Bush satan and is turning Venezuela into a socialist state or Ahmadinejad-the guy who denies the holocaust happened and if given the button to kill all americans and jews, would press it in a heart beat?

I equate it to trying to turn a Cubs fan into a Sox fan or a Packers fan into a Bears fan.

Most of the radical leaders are so set in their ways it wouldn't matter if God came down and tried talking with them, they STILL wouldn't listen.

As for the war, most people have been COMPLETELY mislead by the media as to WHY we went.

WMD's right?

How many of you even bothered READING the resolution that congress voted on???  I have and while it mentions WMD's, it also mentions MUCH more-simply google "iraq resolution" and educate yourself some.  People were being murdered (Kurds) everyday BEFORE we got there and they (Shiite Sunni) will be being murdered AFTER we leave.

Google "the other iraq" and you'll find a place in northern Iraq of peace on prosperity, not the Kurdish death squads that used to be there (the ones Saddam sent to kill Kurds by the hundreds of thousands) Simply google "kurds mass graves" to see what I'm talking about.

Don't believe ANY politician that says they were "mislead" by Bush, it's ALL spelled out in the resolution.  The only reason ANY of them say that is political posteuring.  The media has done such a great job at brainwashing the masses into believing this whole "illegal" war thing that they know they will loose votes if they say they are pro-war.

Why do you think Obama has such a large following?  He's one of the loudest anti-war candidates out there, more then likely to get your vote, not that that is what he believes.

Imagine the instabillity in the Middle East if Saddam invade ANOTHER country (Iran Kuwait) or launched MORE scudz into Israel-did you forget about that?  Imagine the price for a gallon of gas when the entire Middle East is at war....

Imagine if we left his terrorist training camps be, imagine if we let him continue to pay Palestinian suicide bombers families' money, imagine if we let him continue to harbor terrorists in his country-What kind of precedent would that send to the rest of the Middle East???

Utter Chaos....

lylepink? when has the claim that hillary voted for the war been proved false? She voted for it

Has anyone noticed that A LOT of the anti Obama post come from people supposedly from Chicago???  I don't believe for one second that there are that many anti-Obama people who would use this blog to post that are from Chiciago. Sounds like a dirty dirty trick on the part of someone!! hmmm......

DPR - Then why are we not invading Pakistan?  Why are we not invading Saudi Arabia?  Syria?  Countries with much stronger ties to terrorism than Saddam had.  

Frankly, I am stunned at those of you who continue to look over your shoulders and refer back to SENATOR HRC's war vote, which was made at a defining, and a fragile time in our country's history.  Please remember that GWB is the singular "owner" of this war---he bears full and complete responsibility for every facet, bit of info, half-truths, and full out lies.  So, that being said, the REAL issue is HOW do we get OUT of Iraq without destabilizing the entire globe??  I am willing to listen to all of the candidates (both D and R) and respect them for their willingness to run for the office when it surely will be merciless, unforgiving, and challenging.  I have not made up my mind at this point, but.....  
Mr's. Obama, Biden, Richardson, Kucinich, et al have thoughts concerning the issue, but it is HRC who has called the Pentagon's bluff, called for effective summits, and been STRONG enough to not retract her vote, but been willing to accept chastisment in the face of neophyte, and sophmoric comments which only look backward.  She is gaining ground by her no non-nonsense clear answers, and ---as people are seeing-- commanding presence, and deserved respect as a US Senator.
And, oh, by the way--She has made it quite clear the SHE is the one running for office, not her husband.  For those who are still hung up on HIS past, I ask you..... what does that have to do with the future!?!?!

DPR,
Imagine if we actually took steps that would prevent the proliferation of terrorism and anti-U.S. sentiment instead of toppling a contained dictator and doing nothing about real dangers in the world. Sure, Saddam was a brutal dictator, so was Pinochet when we armed him and funded him, so was Saddam when the Reagan administration funded him as well.  Iran is a mess because WE toppled a democratically elected leader in 1953 so a dictator who supported our interests could take over.  Atrocities happen every day, and we should try to prevent them, but it is unfair to use them as a justification to be in Iraq because by that logic we should also be in Sudan, Burma, Liberia, Haiti, etc.  We let bin Laden escape so we could spend our time and energy in Iraq, and for what?  Our own miliatary has done studies proving that our choice to go into Iraq has created more terrorists and made us less safe.  Terrorists are not naturally born, they are made.  Why can't we focus on prventing people from becoming terrorists, instead of fighting aggressive wars of choice that work against our interests?  We need to quit trying to control the world and start trying to work as a leader of the world community.  That will prevent terrorism, make us safer, and not weaker (I said leader, after all).

Obama's stance really is practically the same thing as Clinton's.  However, the way he presents it shows he IS smart and willing to think about foreign policy and diplomacy in a different way than it is normally done.  I, for one, am all for it.  If you're not for trying a new tactic in foreign policy, and your happy for this country to continue further alienating the people who hate us (and those who support us for that matter, too)in the blind hope that someday they'll see the light and start loving everything we stand, go ahead and get in line behind the woman who seems to be using the same sort of rhetoric as every politician before her...

I wonder if Bill will buy new cigars to use in the oval office if Hillary wins?  Yummy!

As a Cuban-American I can tell you that Obama is on the money with this.

What has ignoring and not talking to Fidel Castro done for the last 50 years?  NOTHING!

If you take away the fact that Hillary Clinton insulted Bush in her remarks, then what she has said is no different than what the Bush administration has repeated time and time again -- hence, Obama is absolutely right in likening her to Bush.

In regards to the Iraq War vote..many of us also made a mistake in supporting Bush on this one.  But we have had the intellectual honesty to recognize it as such today.  And please, anyone who justifies Clinton for voting the war based on that the resolution itself did not read the words "we are going to war" then is implying that Hillary aside from being incompetent, must have been the only person in Washington that "didn't know" about Bush's intentions to invade Iraq.

The cracks are beginning to show in the Democratic pres candidates already.  And they've barely gotton beyond the talking snowman asking them about global warming.

Is that Al Gore I hear warming-up in the wings for the job?  I know, I know, don't say "warming" around Al.

The vote to authorize going to war was not wrong.  The president was wrong in how he used that authorization.  The 911 bombing fealt just like someone was invading America and anything done to fight against that invasion needed to be done.  It was the right thing to do.  A wise leader would know how to use that authority which was given: slowly carefully and after exhausting all options.  This country voted for Bush though and the power behind the thrown named Chaney also known as 'Shooter'.  The war in Iraq would be overwith by now but then America voted for him again.  So how in the world can you say that these actions are now Hillary Clinton's fault.  The real vote that counted was not for the war but for keeping the sole source for starting and keeping the war going, in the oval office.  I don't think Hillary voted for Bush for president.    

Go Obama!  Everyone understands there will be preparations before executive level meetings.  Obama just comes clean and says he would meet with these leaders.  I respect his lack of hedging.

I think Obama is right - the US need to show leadership through our willingness to engage everybody. How else are we going to really find out what the counterparts in other countries are really thinking.One thing that is missing in our foreign policy is our capacity to really listen - we blew it with Ho Chi Minh, we blew it with Castro, we blew it with Kenyatta, etc. etc. Even our friends know this!

Personally, I am for Edwards - his One Campaign is fresh and effective and I think he is on the right track - we need to look at the condition of poverty in the US - a lot of the lower middle class have slipped - with outsourcing and globalization, more and more folks will be left behind.

I foresee a Hilary - Obama ticket in the future. All these babbling is just a media stunt. They both worded the same concept differently, and now for the next couple of days they'll have the media paying attention to them.

Sierra - You give the First Lady an awful lot of credit.  She is responsible for all the failures of the health care system we have today?  Wow.  She was an ADVISOR to the President back then, not a Senator.  The fact that you could hold her entirely responsible for the issues our health care system just demonstrates that you are completely biased against her.

Secondly, if the system was so dandy, why then did it need to be fixed back in 1993?  Was it already broken?  But now I am confused.  If it was already broken, how can she be blamed for ruining it?

I'm confused about something else.  People keep pointing out that she was just the First Lady, and had no official role in Bill's administration.  But if she bears all of the responsibility for the health care troubles because she failed to propose a plan that could get through Congress...that sounds like she was actively participating in the governing process in 1993.  So then, by those standards, I guess the 8 years she spent in the White House DO count as political experience, right?  You can't have it both ways - either her time in the White House counts as experience or it doesn't.  If it doesn't, the health care ordeal is irrelevant, because she was merely the First Lady and not a political operative.

Before we interpret Obama's answer as a lack of political experience, we should ask ourselves the following question:
do we need to be politically experienced to realize that  
before a president travels, a lot of groundwork must layed down by diplomats and consorts ?  Of course not,  
it seems we all know this, and most of us are not politicians. Therefore Obama probably knows this, and
his statements in no way indicate the contrary.
He is simply not stating the obvious while expressing a high level vision of diplomacy.
 

Before we interpret Obama's answer as a lack of political experience, we should ask ourselves the following question:
do we need to be politically experienced to realize that  
before a president travels, a lot of groundwork must layed down by diplomats and consorts ?  Of course not,  
it seems we all know this, and most of us are not politicians. Therefore Obama probably knows this, and
his statements in no way indicate the contrary.
He is simply not stating the obvious while expressing a high level vision of diplomacy.
 

In the greater scheme of things, both Obama and Hillary said essentially the same thing.  The question was long and made reference to the meeting between Anwar Sadat of Egypt, and Menachem Begin, then prime minister of Israel.  Egypt had gone to war with Israel in 1967, a war that vaulted then General Arion Sharon to national prominence.

Anyway, Sadat had previously sworn that he'd never meet with an Israeli. But he relented and eventually agreed to meet with Begin.  They met at Camp David, during the famous Camp David Talks brokered by Jimmy Carter, and this resulted in a negotiated peace settlement between Israel and Egypt.  Israel, as a result of the meeting returned the Sinai Desert to Egypt -- something that political experts (read the mainstream media) had said was next to impossible.

It only happened because Sadat was willing to meet.

That is the background to the question that was posed during the debate.  Both Senators Obama and Edwards said that they would meet.  It was Hillary who used the typical hedging and qualifiers, etc., of saying that she would not meet during her 1st year.  She then went onto national media the following morning and verbally attacked Senator Obama's remark (she conveniently omitted Senator Edwards), and you could see she felt very threatened by Senator Obama and is becoming paranoid.

I don't think it's an accident that Madeleine Albright went out to the media shortly afterwards, and essentially repeated the same remark.

But alas! It's really backfired on her.  Senator Obama has shown that he has the political maturity, self-confidence, and belief in his negotiations skills to broker difficult agreements with hostile nations.

When has Hillary ever sat down with conservatives on a really difficult issue and reach a bi-partisan solution?

I can see President Obama solving the Palestinian Mideast Crisis unflinchingly.

Carrie, Eastern Iowa...Your post 4:59 pm
OUTSTANDING!

First of all Sen. Barack Obama has his major in Poly-Sci with a specialization in Internationl Relations, combine that with his current committe seat on Foreign Relations and he is more aware of what is going on in the world right now than HRC. Speaking of which, Sen. Clinton, just recently in New Hampshire said, "You don't refuse to talk to bad people. I think life is filled with uncomfortable situations where you have to deal with people you don't like. I'm sort of an expert on that. I have consistently urged the president to talk to Iran and to talk to Syria. I think its a sign of strength not weakness."
October 31, 2006 at the Council of Foreign Relations:
"Direct negotiations (with enemy states) are not a sign of weakness; they are a sign of leadership. The Bush Administration's refusal to talk to anyone on the evil side, as some have called i idealistic. I call it dangerously unrealistic."
courtesy of www.topix.net
Let's not forget that she voted to authorize this war without reading the NIE report, and because of that vote, it is now costing us $8 Million dollars a month to Pakistan for their assistance to locate Osama bin Laden, with little results I might add, upwards of $12 Million dollars a month to fund this war and the enourmous debt as a result, a $600 Billion dollar embassy, that we may not even be able to occupy, and the increase in al-Qaeda to pre - 9/11 levels in more than six years. Bust most of all it has cost us our country's standing in the world and even more devastating the loss of more than 3600 men and women, all because she (among others) that didn't bother to question or challenge the presidents intentions. If wea are talking about experience and she wants to use her First Lady status as a means to promote that then she is in real trouble as far as I can see. As first Lady she didn't sit down with foreign leaders and negotiate agreements, I find it even highly unlikely she was even in the same room at the time her husband was in negotiations with those leaders, so what she stood in a reception line and shook hands, that doesn't qualify her as a leader in foreign policy.

This for David from South Carolina:

A thorough digging will show that Obama was against the war from the start. He was Nostradamus-like in seeing the fracture of the country into Shia vs. Sunni vs. Kurd and that we had no plan to get out. He also asked how much the folly was going to cost us. Remember when the neo-cons were staying it would cost no more than $6 billion and that could be repaid with oil money. This past April Hillary was caught on tape rapping Bush for not talking with our enemies. Now she's stand-offish? Flip-flop, flip-flop. There were 23 some odd senators who did not vote for the war and senior Illinois senator Dick Durbin was one of them, so it's pretty safe to assume that if Obama had been a  senator at that time he would have stayed true to his conviction and voted along with Durbin against the war.

Hillary flip-flopped over this same issue on the debate with Y-Tube and I guess this is her moment to show her lying ways to Iowa early in the election.
On April 22, 2007 she had a croud of 1000 souls she lied and said she would meet with the leaders of foreign countries and use diplomacy.  She then chastised the Bush Administration about not doing so.
This took place in Decourah Iowa
We need a truthful candidate.  BArack speaks from his heart and soul about the concern of how this country is headed.

She thinks Americans aren't paying attention.
She is WRONG AGAIN.

America do we want another present Washington Paper Hanger for a President?? These two clowns presently serve and they can't agree on anything ""expect their own self serving agaenda!!!

I want a president!! Not just another Washington Paper hanger to fill the seat as our President!!!!!

I would Vote for Satan before I would """VOTE GENDER""

Emerals - I have a degree in Political Science.  I took classes in international relations. I even took a class about the politics of terrorism.  Does that mean I am qualified to be president?  

The late President, John F. Kennedy, once enjoined our country and its people by these few words:

"Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate."

Senator Obama's response to the question about meeting other foreign leaders, with whom we may not have the friendliest of relations, is clearly in the spirit of what JFK had in mind.

Alot could be accomplished, including unnecessary wars and bilateral hostility that could be avoided, rather than implement a belligerent foreign policy. We saw this type of bilateral engagement work in previous administrations, when leaders engaged each other directly, as Nixon and Kruschev, Reagan and Gorbachev, did.

The import of the respective responses by Senators Obama and Clinton is not to be minimized, because, they underscore the philosophical differences in how each candidate would conduct US foreign policy, if elected the president in 2008. From their responses, it is clear that one candidate is about fundamental change, transformation and renewal, while the other is for the status quo, and a hawk. Another important inference one could draw from the exchanges between these candidates, is that one is able and willing, without hedging his response to questions, while the other startles her position, perhaps, a lack of candor, which most voters would find troubling in a candidate for the presidency of the US.

This type of exchange should be encouraged and closely studied by voters, before they cast their votes. Do not depend on what some journalists write or tell you about each candidate and the issues, because, most of them are not objective in their views. Make up your own mind on each candidate.

Much has been written and talked about the relative experience of each of the candidates. However, one does not gain qualifying experience just by being there, like, living in the White House all those many years. What accomplishments did you achieve -like policy, or social causes like past First Ladies? In addition, what good is experience that lacks good and sound judgment on important policy issues, like authorization to go to war? I would rather choose a candidate that has a record of accomplishment of sound judgment on important policy issues, even if such accomplishment is at the state, or local government level, or other veritable spheres of human endeavor. If we, the voters, judge these candidates by their accomplishments in life, and not just by how many years they have spent in the Senate, or the White House, or who their spouses are, we would find quality candidates and elect an individual with candor, vision and other leadership qualities to save the ship of state.

Ignatius Anyanwu
Folsom, California

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):