Obama on Clinton, 'Bush-Cheney light'

Posted: Thursday, July 26, 2007 12:22 PM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: Democrats

From NBC’s Andrew Merten

Obama has now taken his foreign diplomacy spat with Clinton on the campaign trail, firing back against her criticism that his willingness to meet with world dictators is “naïve.” Said Obama this morning during an endorsement speech in Concord, NH: “I’m not afraid of losing the PR war to dictators,” continuing, “I’m not going to hide behind a bunch of rhetoric. I don’t want a continuation with Bush-Cheney. I don’t want Bush-Cheney light. I want a fundamental change.”

As First Read reported earlier, during a conference call with reporters this morning, Obama challenged Clinton to differentiate her policy of meeting with dictators only under certain preconditions with that of the Bush Administration. This came after an initial comment to the Quad Cities Times, followed by an on-camera interview with NBC News last night. But this is the first time Obama has brought up the disagreement -- which started during Monday night’s presidential debate -- during a campaign speech. It proved to useful in riling up the audience, garnering cheers and applause.

He continued to speak on the importance of diplomacy and decried the current administration’s reluctance to speak with some foreign leaders, saying, “We’re going to be tough and smart, and we’re not going to be afraid of anybody in affirming what America is all about.”

EMAIL THIS

Comments

For the moment, let's leave aside the issue of whether a President should squander the "Coin of the Realm" meeting with Enemies of the State individually and without pre-condition (I disagree with Obama here, FYI). Still, this issue speaks to a larger concern I have with candidate Obama: his tendency to be inattentive to the details.

In every debate, Obama has proven himself to be unable to grasp the parameters and specifics of a question. As a consequence, his answers are often ill-suited and open to exploitation.

With an eye to the general election, why should the Democrats elect someone whose rookie carelessness makes him vulnerable to ruinous accusations and characterizations?

For example, the day after the YouTube debate, the Miami Herald had a headline that read:

Obama, Edwards say they would meet with Castro, Chavez.

(http://www.miamiherald.com/579/story/179 947.html)

It doesn't take much imagination to envision these same headlines featured ad nauseam within the deluge of GOP campaign ads hitting the Florida airwaves morphing Democratic Presidential nominee Obama with Castro and Ahmadinejad. Tell me again the upside for the Democrats in needlessly angering the Cubans and the Jews?

Why should the Democrats elect a candidate who would so recklessly hand Florida's electoral votes to the GOP, and on a silver-platter, nonetheless?

The GOP will eat Obama alive on this one.

Eat. Obama. Alive.

JoeCHI, Chicago, IL (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 12:25 PM)

Go, Barack! In fact, I doubt that Obama would rush to meet with all our supposed enemies...because as president he'd have a team of advisors advising him. But Obama is right, the president of the US should be open to meeting with the leaders of other countries (e.g., Nixon met with Mao and Reagan met with Gobarchev). Heck, George W. Bush has allied the US to Libya's mass-murdering, dictator Moammar Khaddafi. Any comments, Sen. Clinton? I didn't think so.

Jon Davis, Las Cruces, NM (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 12:36 PM)

I don't care what anyone says, it's about time Barack Obama goes after Hillary on Iraq. She started it and she is the wrong person to be calling someone
Nieve on FR considering she "blondly" folowed GWB and authorized the war in Iraq. Bringing up Grand Ma Albright ain't to bright either when one is trying to pretend one is looking towards the future. Cliton Staff members touting Clinton is nothing Newsworthy and all it does is remind the American people about the old Clinton years. The UGLY Clinton years. All the old feelings and jokes and disgust will come puring out all over again so, hey. Bring it. Lay it out on the table so we can remember just how nasty and gross those times were. Remind us, Hillary, why we can't stand you.

DR (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 12:39 PM)

I think the "Doctor Phil" question should be applied to foreign relations: we should look at what we're doing overseas and ask,"So how's that working for us?" In some ways we seem to legitimize dictators by our stubborn silence, spotlighting them for tweaking Uncle Sam's nose, refusing to even attempt dialogue.And our so-called "refusal" to deal with unsavory or inconvenient international characters has always been highly selective. I agree with Obama that talking is better than not talking, since not talking seems to have gotten us nowhere.

Tony Bollen, Seattle, WA (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 12:40 PM)

Sorry about all of the typos. I guess that was Karma for the "blond" comment. But you get my point about Hillary.

;p

DR (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 12:44 PM)

I hope for the sake of our country that we are smart enough to elect Obama. It would be the first step into making America what it once was, respected. Hillary sounds like a coward for not wanting to meet with the foriegn leaders whom we're at odds with. That obviously hasn't worked, so why don't we try something that does. And it doesn't have to be secret, I say if those leaders want to talk we should have a discussion that is broadcast around the world for everyone to see and hear. That way everyone can know what's going on, everyone will be able to see which side isn't holding up to what was talked about. but that would require a leader with courage and integrity and above all honesty, sorry Hill Obama's got you beat on all of those things.

Charles Kushner (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 12:45 PM)

Meetings and conversations between heads of state are acts in and of themselves, even if nothing is said. We give stature to those with whom our presidents meet, and, whether or not to meet is a point of leverage in diplomatic efforts. So long as we are talking through back channels, I want a president who is selective about whether, when and with whom they share a public podium. Hillary got it right, but, that's not to say Obama would not when confronted with real (not hypothetical) choices.

Jeff Emerson, Wichita, Kansas (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 12:50 PM)

I agree with Obama, 100%, we need to talk with ALL Foreign leaders regardless of where they stand on America. We will never gain their alliances if we ignore them. Look at talking with Kim Jong IL of Korea. When talks were finally done, they dismantled their nuclear bombs. And now with Cuba, we have a chance at a new "close neighbor" alliance. Why not talk with them?

Maggie Riester, Shoreline, Wash. (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 12:51 PM)

Fight Obama Fight, is about time you expose the lies of clinton position in iraq etc

Emmy (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 12:55 PM)

This is the Barack we have been waiting for. Tell it like it is Barack!

If Democrats nominate Hillary, expect another eight years of Bush-Cheney diplomacy - "you're either with us or against". Talk about 16 years of wasted opportunity to directly engage the world community. Enough!

Jeffrey Abrams (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 12:56 PM)

Dictators only understand one thing: The iron fist is all powerful. Dictators by definition have no interest in dialogue with anyone, unless it increases their power, control and economic situation. Do you think holding talks with the likes of a Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot would have changed anything? They were maniacal ideologues, who are not going to be swayed by reason and "good will" Yes, Obama is being naive to the extent that he would only be manipulated and played for a fool on the world stage.

al walters, mount arlington nj (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 12:57 PM)

I'm not a fan of John Edwards, however, he summed up my feelings best when he said, "we can't trade their insiders for our insiders." Meaning that it will do the country no good to have these Washington insides (a la Hillary Clinton) run our country. It will only benefit Democrats. I'm sick and tired of those people, Hillary included. I'd rather risk more for a higher dividend and that's why Obama is my man. This country is too cautious. If we truly wanted change, we would vote for Obama, hell even Edwards. Let's not spoil it. Was JFK experienced? NO, but his memory still lives on today as a great leader. The same with MLK, he was a hope mongorer, just like Obama. Does anyone doubt his contribution to society? I don't think so. Let's stop pussyfooting around, and do something already.

scott (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 12:58 PM)

The bottom line is that 2008 is going to be a CHANGE election and Barack is the undisputed face of change. HRC is so yesterday. She absolutely REEKS of yesterday. If I think of an old calendar, I think of her face on it. (Stolen from James Carville's take on Bush 41).

Has anybody else noticed that JoeCHI has posted that exact same comment on about a dozen different threads around the net this morning? Hope the Hillary Campaign is paying him well. I'd want to see some $$$ if I looked like such a clown...

JBS, Kansas City, Missouri (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 12:59 PM)

JoeCHI - Obama inattentive to details? He's the smartest guy running, and probably the smartest person in my lifetime to run; we're in bad shape as a country if we're not going to consider raw intelligence as a major factor after the Bush debacle. Generally in our modern system, honest, brilliant, and kind people don't bother running because they don't want to get dragged down in all the mud; in terms of those attributes, we've hit the lottery with Obama, and probably won't get another opportunity to have a President with those attributes for generations, unless the system fundamentally changes. They'll be quite smart, sure, but not from among America's smartest; they may not be bad people, but they will inevitably pander, saying different things to different groups. Or, we can actually have something better for a change. I really hope we don't blow it.

On another note, there's also only one candidate out of all the frontrunners from either party that has not been a millionaire for many years, and that's Obama; he took a $13,000 a year job as a community organizer instead of getting rich as a lawyer, always putting personal wealth second and public service first. He's also got the best spending record of all of them, with the lowest burn rate compared to every other major Presidential campaign. With all those facts in mind, who do you trust most with trillions of dollars, safe in the knowledge they won't pilfer or squander it?

Shadow, Hamden, CT (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 1:09 PM)

She will Regret not letting this pass. Obama has shown he will Not let little stuff go unanswered.GO OBAMA

rick,ky (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 1:14 PM)

JoeCHI: Wrong, as usual, Clintonista !! 'meeting with Enemies of the State'
Hugo Chavez is opposed to Bush's policies. As are 66% of AMERICANS, JoeCHI.
He's not an 'enemy of the State'. You'reconfusing George Bush (and Hillary) with America.
(L'etat c'est moi, Hillary ?)

The problem with the current crop of Washington insdiers is their imperial pretense. We live in a world of independent nations, not American pawns.

The Bush/Clinton pretenses assume an imperial America.
Clinton's stated policies are'Bush lite'.
Just like her husband's policies were Republican lite.

It's Hillary who was careless in sup[porting the Iraq Ware without reading the National Intelligence Report !!
Hillary made her decision based on her political advantage, and not America's.
Hillary recklessly sent thousands of Americans to their death without reading the NIE.
who stood up to Bush to oppiose the war.

Hillary and a small number of Democratic turncoats enabled Bush to go to war. Hillary was CARELESS and RECKLESS !!

Go Obama, Turn the page !

Sierra, San Francisco (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 1:17 PM)

I like Barack but I think he's getting the wrong advice or showing even more immaturity in continuing his rants over Clinton. He may be accusing her of being Cheney-Bush light, but what is he doing but following the repubs regular operating strategy of personal and continual attacks. It's not becoming of him. It's annoying like a yapping little dog. They should both square things publicly with each other, as I think they both had the same overall response in mind.

Brian, Cedar Hill, TX (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 1:19 PM)

That is pretty clever, calling Hillary "Bush/Cheney Lite." That could stick.

What JoeChi said, however, does resonate with my own fears about Obama. I'm afraid he's Kerry all over again, an introvert, someone of whom we all know what he MEANT most of the time, but whose words are easily twisted by the opposition. Let's face it, Obama is not glib, and that could hurt him down the road, unless he gets really good at the counter punch.

Amy B Portland, ME (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 1:25 PM)

The Obama has same liability as Geroge Bush as speaking little too much without thinking. Evil Empire comment has done more harm. Same thing could have been said more refinely. Obama need to learn good intention are not good enough. If his supporters think Hillary making big deal out of nothing then he better watch for world leaders from other countries. They can chew one out and spit off.

I am convinced Obama should have focussed on gettign trained and learning for at least first term in Senate. He talks inspiration and that soudns good. However his leadership in Senate is virtually zero.

Obama and Edwards can easily say they were against the war. They were not asked to vote on war. Now if Obama rallies Senate and passes soem resolution that will end the war, I can feel he got substance. yesterday I was right when I was standign on the sides is not good enough for me and most of not so young Americans.

RAJ AT WWW.CHICAGOMAN.COM

RAJ PATEL, USA (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 1:30 PM)

Obama is correct on this one...Hillary foreign policy is the same as Bush-Cheney.

Bush's main excuse for not meeting people we may not agree with is that he wont get everything he's demanding....Hillary is using the same excuse.

nixon (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 1:38 PM)

Not everyone in Fl or Cuban Americans for that matter think Obama was wrong in the debate on Monday. This is what happens when the media tries to "Pigeon hole"
everyone. Or people like Hillary pander. Say what you really believe, you might be surprised how many people were waiting to hear it. What people forget is there is a whole new generation of Cuban Americans growing up now who are tired of the hostilities to Cuba. I love the BUSH-Light, that's going to play real well. LOL

http://www.miamiherald.com/456/story/182554.html

Lyn, Silver Spring, MD (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 1:42 PM)

Sierra you rock.

Gary, Des Moines, IA (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 1:44 PM)

Bush won't meet with these guys because they won't agree to his preconditions either.

How does Hillary's position on foreign dictators differ from Cheney's positions?

Yiannis, Baltimore, MS (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 1:47 PM)

Raj, before you go making judgement, you may want to get your facts straight. Edwards DID, in fact, vote for the war. He was in the Senate at the time. He's, at least, had the decency to apologize for his vote. Hillary, on the otherhand, has not. shame on her.

scott (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 1:49 PM)

But remember fellow democrats. Vote DEMOCRATIC!! Lets not vote ourselves out of another election due to intellectualizing too much. Whether its Clinton or Obama or Edwards... Vote democratic! Look at the alternatives(repubs).

Susan, Miami (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 1:49 PM)

"So long as we are talking through back channels, I want a president who is selective about whether, when and with whom they share a public podium."
And the talking through back channels has helped this country how??? American enjoys its worst reputation in my lifetime. I say talk to everyone - GO OBAMA!

Jamie, Elmwood Park, IL (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 2:00 PM)

Hillary is proving to be nothing more than a warmongering neocon light, far to the right of Bill. Her politics are much closer to Bush's than any other Democratic Candidate. It amazes me that so many people are willing to vote for the farthest right leaning of all the Democratic candidates after what we have seen from the right for the last 7 years.

Garland Nixon (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 2:04 PM)

Just read about Romney's comments comparing Obama's views on foreign policy to that of Neville Chamberlain. Obama do something...counter punch and counter attack. Practice makes perfect.

Shamus Feng (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 2:24 PM)

This is politics as usual, people. They fight, they argue, they dispute negative claims against their campaigns. That is the nature of this beast we call the presidential race.
What Obama said was very smart and will, most likely, stick with Hillary for a long time. I also agree with him. Hillary's beliefs seems too similar to Bush/Cheney's for me to feel comfortable.

Nathan (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 2:30 PM)

As usual, the nutcakes in SF think that Chavez is a nice boy. Oh, he confiscates private property, nationalizes oil, cancels elections, etc., but he's okay for the west coasters becaause he hates Bush.

Oh, please.

Bruce, NV (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 2:45 PM)

The truth is out, Bush is much crazier than Chavez!!

bb (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 3:02 PM)

Have the leaders mentioned...Chavez, Castro, etc. expressed their willingness to meet with Obama without preconditions? Has he indicated what as president his policies toward Latin America would be? and why? Aren't those more important questions for the voters to be concerned about than whether or not he would sit around and jawbone with them?

Dale, Birmingham (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 3:04 PM)

Here's my understanding:

Hillary's mistake was that 'preconditions' is a fuzzy word to most people. What constitutes a precondition, is whatever she wants them to be, and the audience didn't know what preconditions were for her. We still don't know what she means.

Preconditions could be set so that rogue leaders would never agree to them (or the changes are low). What voters want to know is will you or won't you, and she didn't say yes. She cited propaganda, an image issue. Obama can promise to meet with the leaders because he can set whatever preconditions to be achievable, and make it happen.

Voters want someone to face these leaders, and Obama made it clear that he could be counted on to make it happen. This is an intent issue, and Hillary's technicality escape hasn't gotten far as a result.

Her trying to cover herself by making this an experience issue has opened the door for Obama to attack her lack of judgment in the Iraq vote, and more. Her argument can sound convoluted, and make Hillary's experience claim look like 'I know how to set up meetings better.' In a president, people aren't looking for a bureaucrat.

Hillary, move on quickly.

Jeff Morgan, Austin, TX (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 3:20 PM)

"But remember fellow democrats. Vote DEMOCRATIC!! " <<--

Do the instructions need to be so verbose?

"Susan, Miami"

Oh, wait. This is Florida.

Nevermind.

wrt (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 3:32 PM)

Obama is naive. He has absolutely no business being president, given all of the problems facing us across the world. The other day he said something about having "better foreign policy experience" than any other candidate running. If I was Biden or Richardson, I'd get into the fray right now, too, about this. What an ego this man has!

Kelli in IL (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 3:34 PM)

Hillary is a Bush Lite. Go Obama!

Cat St. Cloud, Mn (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 4:07 PM)

"But remember fellow democrats. Vote DEMOCRATIC!! Lets not vote ourselves out of another election due to intellectualizing too much. Whether its Clinton or Obama or Edwards... Vote democratic! Look at the alternatives(repubs)."

Well said Susan. Don't think, just vote democrat!

Give me a break. That's the same logic that got us where we are today. So what happens when America votes for a Democrat that operates the same as the current admin? Open your eyes and make a SMART choice whether its dem or repub.

jk (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 4:25 PM)

I love the idea of Hillary being Bush/Cheney Lite. Those of us that are Obama supporters have GOT to make that stick and keep it going. If the Republicans can do it with something as stupid as "Flip-flopper" we should be able to stick Hillary with this easily. Reading all of thse comments something becomes very clear to me; some people are ready for change (Obama's position), others want the status quo (Hillary's). It will be interesting to see who comes out on top. But go Obama, you're the best one running!

Jennie Denver,CO (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 4:42 PM)

jk, There is no SMART republican choice, because they are ALL PRO-WAR, PERIOD!

I agree with Susan, Democrats will change America for the better because they are DIPLOMATIC. Whether Obama or Clinton!

I agree with Obama on this one too. America should never fear talking with another world leader. And, I don't blame Obama for bringing this Clinton issue up time and time again because it is WORKING. SHE STARTED IT! AND NOW IT IS GOING TO BITE HER IN THE ASS!

dk (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 5:00 PM)

This story is completely ridiculous! I can't believe the media got it so wrong. Its not Bush-Cheney Light... its Bush-Cheney Lite.

If I have to drink a crappy American light beer, I'll take Miller over the others.

I agree with Amy - this one could stick.

It speaks to Clinton's initial support of the invasion. Yes I know some of her supporters are desperately saying she voted to bluff Hussein into letting inspectors back into country. I'm not buying that and think its ludicrous on its face. I remember that "debate" if you could call it that, and it was a debate to authorize an invasion. Plus, neither her nor anyone who voted to authorize sure didn't speak up in protest of the invasion until things started going bad and public support fell.

It speaks to what some see as a Clinton willingness to resort to dirty tricks. Remember Primary Colors? Yes it was a novel, but only sorta. And the climactic drama was the Bill Clinton character walking that tightrope between his hired gun, who didn't want to go dirty, and his wife, who did.

It speaks to the difficulty determining what Clinton believes - some see that as a commonality between them.

It speaks to a level of shamelessness. Remember Bush campaigned as the liberty candidate in 2000, lol. And also to a preference for secrecy and backdoor dealings.

Yeah, I think its going to stick.

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 5:20 PM)

Obama didn't say he had better foreign policy experience. He said his "judgement" was better and since he was one of the few and first to publicly denounce the Iraq war, I would have to agree.

As Shadow stated above, the intelligence is there and he appears to be a quick study. For his lack of campaigning experience, he is quickly learning how to turn tables on a hardened opponent. I have no doubt that Obama would attract the top minds in the country to his administration, unlike Bush who is plainly intimidated by anyone other than loyalists and "yes" men.

I agree we are faced with almost insurmountable problems and what we need is a fresh and visionary perspective in the White house, along with brainpower and someone with inspirational leadership abilities and raw courage to solve them. I don't see that in anyone else running besides him.

Angela in IL (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 5:44 PM)

Obama, you are my wet dream! Keep sticking it to the MAN! err woman . . .

Nick, Minneapolis MN (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 6:04 PM)

The face of America is ugly over seas. Not talking to the people that hate you would cause them to hate you more, which will lead to more violence. The days of the bad boys in texas has come and gone, it is time for a change. When you ignore some one for a long time you gain nothing, but when you make room for even a small conversation you begin to build trust and Respect. America neeeds the worlds respect. America needs to be trusted again. Go Obama, give us the opportunity to move freely amongst other mations of the world.

Dalton Erskine, Lawrenceville, Georgia. (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 6:19 PM)

These meetings would involve decisions by both sides. If you think back to many articles concerning the Middle East you will recall that the Arab League, Syria, Iran, etc. regularly refuse to meet with Israel or us without preconditions. If the President is going to be going to meetings without preconditions that would be preconditions on our side. The other side is not going to give up its preconditions just because we give up ours. In fact, they will see our giving up preconditions as proof of our weakness.

JG San Antonio (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 7:33 PM)

Hillary is a good candidate, Barack is better. It IS the difference between conservative lite and progressive, if we mus use these labels.
As for experience - the question is experienced at what? Bush was an experienced loser when he was elected (also at a relatively age). Hillary is an experienced insider. Barack is an experienced public servant.

UJ, Phoenix, AZ (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 8:27 PM)

This is argument has been blown way out of proportion. The question was "Would you promise to meet with leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, and North Korea without preconditions in the first year." It was a very specific question and Hillary hammered it. She said she wouldn't promise to meet with these leaders, but she would promise to pursue vigorous diplomatic efforts and then move forward from there. There is no change in position. She never promised not to pursue diplomacy and talk with these leaders; she never even promised not to meet with these leaders. The question was very specific and Clinton was right to not make promises. It is irresponsible to jump into a meeting if you don't know the intentions or what you are going to accomplish. Her words are being distorted by the Obama camp. She even elaborated on her diplomatic intentions by saying that she would use high-level presidential envoys to test the water andhelp ease the tension. Isn't that what ambassadors on behalf of the US are used for?? Easing the tension and laying the foundation down for high-level talks between presidents. That type of diplomacy certainly isn't Bush-Cheney like. It's engaging in responsible diplomacy that gets things accomplished. I certainly don't want this country to be embarrased anymore than it has. Then, Obama's retalliation about it was irresponsible to get into this war, etc. was just immature and diverted attention away from the real question. Just the fact that Obama had to elaborate upon his response oozed of inexperience. Point blank, Hillary has experience in intense diplomacy. Obama does not. Who would you trust with diplomatic efforts?

jd, Dallas, Texas (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 9:14 PM)

The whole spat makes both of them look ridiculous, frankly.

Christine, West Milford, NJ (Sent Thursday, July 26, 2007 9:21 PM)

Obama may have mis-spoke but at least he is wiliing to express new ways of thinking. I think most people agree Bush is Hard Headed and Stubborn.. H. Clinton's on the other hand show her experience in diplomacy. Real answer is, you do not meet but you keep all other lines of communication open to resolve issues. Thats what the the State Dept. is for and what Ole Nixon used effectively.

W. Fitzhugh, Columbia, SC (Sent Friday, July 27, 2007 5:44 AM)

Obama is out of his mind. All that blow he "used to do".

LMagni, Normal IL (Sent Friday, July 27, 2007 10:23 AM)

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

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

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=292334