I think she made a mistake stooping down from her front runner status to denigrate someone who is in no way close to you in the polls or early states. And to use the words "irresponsible and naive"?
As for my homeboy Obama, hmm I will vote for him but I wonder if he is ahead of his time. U see the old gaurd...mccain, holbrooke and albright all trying to diss him?
And to think anyone will sympatise with the clintonistas as regards the label bush-lite...the label ties in with the policy of hope and change mantra vs the experience and status quo jingles.
As for McCain and Romney..as someone said on this site: "talk about being touched bby lepers".
Vito Corleone said..keep you enemies closer than uh friends. Now thats politically savvy.

This just in from CNN, clinton 39%, OBAMA 30%. Obama must be doing something right, since it had been a double digit lead. Hwer spokesman (Howard Wolfson) is being ate alive on both CNN & MSNBC this evening. GO OBAMA!!!!!!!!!!!

MM, the vote alone diqualifys her

I'm highly amused that some Clinton supporters are complaining about being attacked on this issue. Clinton opened the morning after by calling Obama naive and... some other adjective that escapes me at the moment (early Alzheimers, I think). And now Obama is simply doing what Clinton publicly said a candidate has to do - don't let an allegation linger. Oops, there I go again using her words against her. My bad.

GONZO-GATE

Lyn,  Say it again, "don't start no s--- won't be no s----!"  Exactly!  He pledged not to start fights, but he never said he wouldn't finish them. I get the sense that you and I come from the same cloth, so I'm hoping it wasn't lost on you why she chose to use the carefully selected description of him as "irresponsible."  I have no illusions about the Clinton triangulation of wooing Black folks while appealing to bigots a the same time.  That was always Bill Clinton's "southern" strategy.  To call him "irresponsible" was code word to bigots, particularly men, that this guy is the typical, irresponsible Black male.  Instead of John Edwards commenting on her jacket, he should have commented on her fat a@#!  Like anyone really believe that Bill Clinton still touches that.

Carrie,

You seem to be an honest Hillary supporter. Hillary says she won't meet them without preconditions.

Preconditions means that they are going to have to agree with us or we won't meet.

That shows arrogance. Meeting with pre-conditions is arrogant and what has brought the US reputation to below Zero. And it's the same arrogance displayed by her vote to give Bush a blank check to go to war in Iraq.

This message is a great example of who will be voting for both Barack and Hillary.  No talk of any substance, no issues even remotely broached, just he said/she said, I like him because he talk nice and promise me stuff, I like her because she woman and promise me stuff.  How about a discussion about issues, plans, and how they're going to pay for it?  The media loves to cover this bull**** and the politicians love to supply it because it takes everyone's mind of the things that really matter and lets them watch a process that has become more "Real World" un-reality TV than substantive, important dialogue about the future of our country and its citizens.

Americans don't believe in the "politics of hope" because of Washington politicians like HRC and McCain.  Notice how narrow-minded their worldview is and how resistant they are to change.  HRC is basically fabricating a controversy...if she gets so rattled by an undersecretary of defense and a fellow senator- how can she possibly stand up to the pressures of the world?  Go Obama '08!

Romney-Clinton '08!!!

The ignorant "team spirit" comments I see posted on various blogs highlight why this country is so unbelievably divided! The world is not black and white, people! It's VERY GRAY, and it requires nuance, 'lest we end up again with another administration that ignores 50% of the population. People are resistant to dramatic changes.

And to Lewis in Cincinati -- electing a black man in 08 is an even longer shot that electing a woman because racism is real -- and it's not just among whites. It exists among all races, and with African Americans accounting for roughly 10% of the population, the numbers just aren't there. Electing a woman who's a Democrat is more likely only from a sheer numbers game.

And you might want to reconsider telling others to "look inward" before you know anything about them. I am a minority and a woman, and I grew up in a diverse community. Consequently my circle of friends and family is multi-racial. Those of us who are minorities are forced to be PRACTICAL, NOT IDEALISTIC because we live with the realities of racism day-to-day.

I would like to pose the following questions to DEMOCRATS:


1) If your preferred candidate isn't nominated, will you stay home on election day? Will you continue to bash the nominated Democrat?

2) And for those who hate Hillary Clinton, if she gets the nomination, will you stay home or vote for the Republican nominee? Do you hate her so much that you'd rather see Romney, Giuliani, or Thompson in the White House?

I am a Hillary supporter, but I don't bash the other Dem candidates because it would make it harder to support the winner with one's heart and soul if that person happens not to be your first choice. Besides, I'd like to see most except Gravel in the cabinet.

Clinton shoudln't have started it by saying 'irresponsible and naive'. Once it has started...It's on baby !!

See story above:
She will say, “Well, this is getting kind of silly. I’ve been called a lot of things in my life but I’ve never been called George Bush or Dick Cheney, certainly. We have to ask what’s ever happened to the politics of hope?"

My, my, it seems the "lady doth protest too much". Senator Obama DID NOT call Ms Clinton either George Bush or Dick Cheney. Please re-read his exact words. The insinuation is in the eyes of the beholder.

More from Clinton: “I have been saying consistently for a number of years now, we have to end the Bush era of ignoring problems, ignoring enemies and adversaries. And I have been absolutely clear that we’ve got to return to robust and effective diplomacy. But I don’t want to see the power and prestige of the United States President put at risk by rushing into meetings with the likes of Chavez, and Castro, and Ahmadinejad.”

There is NO WAY we could possibly put the "power and prestige of the United States President" at risk!!! There is no prestige and little power left to risk thanks to the Clinton years and subsequent Bush years!
Please, could we have a reasonable, rational, thoughtful human being leading this country? What an audacious idea! Vote for Barack Obama.  

 DEE, you're right.  Bill was probably on speed dial all day tuesday, trying to clean up that statement of hers Tuesday morning.  The buzz I've been getting around the watercooler was that was a big misstake ("cheap Shots").  Of course I'm helping to spread the word.  She better hope Bill can calm the flame.  There's a "quiet rage"
building.  If Bill is successful ( I hope he is not) she won't get a strike 2

The reality of this whole Clinton vs. Obama debate over meeting with leaders of other nations comes down to who could spout nicer-sounding political rhetoric. Both candidates are trying to come off as a leader who will bring about "change" in foreign policy and international affairs, when in truth they are arguing about trivial issues to avoid having to address the real ones.

While they are debating diction and semantics, Ron Paul is a voice of real change. Not just changing the words around or "fiddling with the code," but getting the federal government out of taking your Constitutional rights and back where it should be - protecting the borders, retaining our sovereignty as a nation, and building friendship with other nations through diplomacy and free trade.

You don't have to listen to the political rhetoric of the "frontrunners" - it's your choice. Check Dr. Paul out on YouTube or at ronpaul2008.com

Wow!  This is fun!  It is soo obvious that Team Obama - aka David Axelrod and that numbskull Robert Gibbs are sooo far over their heads, theyre desperate to touch bottom.  What a joke.  A perplexed poster above wrote this:

Clinton's response is a non-response. Her campaign managers are perplexed by the "Bush-Cheney light" comparison. Hillary Clinton is indeed in a pickle.

Funny stuff.  Though I do like the use of the word pickle, the rest is internet fluff. Its obvious that Obama and co are floundering in this very simple defence and are going to the net and using netroot attack lines.  Oh they called her "Bush - Lite??!!....Oh No! She is doomed now"...How silly and juvenile.  But my favorite defense from Barack himself is that he feels he is the most capable of ALL the Prez candidates - on foreign policy - because he lived overseas when he was  to 10 years old and ...get this....because he studied "International Relations" in college????????  Ha-Ha hardy Har Har!

Lordie!  And Chuck Todd scored this round to Obama??!!
Oh Chuck puleeze....just cause you guys want a Obama-Hill Horse race, come on, this thing is clearly not the battle of the Titans.

Rundown:

Hillary leads in 34 of 36 primary states.
Nationally she leads in polling by 16% plus.
Her strategic advisor is Bill Clinton.
Obama's is....himself, Axelrod...and Gibbs.

Excuse me as I now go to put down more money on Hillary with the british betting houses.  The b*tch is now, they won't give ya any odds whatsoever. They KNOW that she is the nominee.  

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?

Lyn, MD

"the vote alone diqualifys her", and so it does  the majority. So how many democrat senators and congressmen have we kicked out based on their vote for Iraq war, how come we reelected the guy who started the war? And how many of us have apoligised to the rest of us for supporting the war, since more than 70% of the people at that time wanted us to go to war?  why do we fail to overlook that she knew 10 years back that health care is a big problem in this country? does that make her smart enough to be president? Does it make all the people who voted against the war good enough to be the president? what if the war had turned out good and our army was back home within 2 years, would that have made clinton smarter than obama and made her qualified to be the president? She is smart, intelligent and so was her husband. And I guess most of the anger directed at Hilary is for the very same reason - she is smart and intelligent. I think most of the people want to have a person in the WH that they can drink beer with, but seriously, I would never vote for a person with whom I can have a beer with.

hen she ran for the Senate in 2000, she mocked Republicans (such as Caspar Weinberger and Colin Powell) who think "we should intervene with force only when we face splendid little wars that we surely can win, preferably by overwhelming force in a relatively short period of time." On the contrary, she said, we "should not ever shy away from the hard task if it is the right one."

As Michael Crowley of The New Republic has noted, she had another reason for supporting Bush on Iraq. "I'm a strong believer in executive authority," she said in 2003. "I wish that, when my husband was president, people in Congress had been more willing to recognize presidential authority."

There you have it. A Hillary Clinton presidency promises to unite Madeleine Albright's zeal for using bombs in pursuit of liberal ideals with Dick Cheney's vision of the president as emperor. Won't that be fun?

http://reason.com/news/show/121601.html

Another person agrees that Hillary and Bush are simply two sides of the same coin.

You guys, especially the Clinton lurkers, should watch today's msnbc 'Hardball'! Chris Matthews interviewed both Obama's guy, David Axelrod, and Clinton's guy, Howard Wolfson, about the current Obama/Clinton diplomacy debate. Giving in to hype and inflamatory rhetoric, Wolfson absurdly suggested that Obama's secretly in talks with a dictator! Matthews immediately called him on it, Wolfson tried to wiggle-worm out, and Matthews wouldn't let him. (I'd love to be a fly on any wall near Clinton's campaign ........ heeheehee).

I am with you on this Jar. Hillary is a joke.....

You are all very, very sick people to think that a young man can run the country. Hillary's wisdom through experience combined with age make her a much better candidate. Obama speaks well and tells you what you want to hear. Let him become President and actually balance the budget, be diplomatic internationally and restore the economy. He doesn't have the wisdom to do the job...WAKE UP PEOPLE

America "" Paper hangers fill our ears with their meaningless lies""! Washington is a shambles because of these Paper hangers""  Don't send these paper hangers to the White House"",, unless you want more of the same which we have today!!!!!

You want a ""Goose steping President???  Well Vote ""Gender""! I don't want a Paper Hanger for a President!! Billary and Blabbama not one a leader, not one that has leadership traits! Only self serving agenda, and America has had sixteen years of hearing two great liar's. Paper Hangers in washington can't even clean our streets of 12 million Illegals, enforce Federal law, ACLU has taken over the courts, America has lost our moral content, Washington paper hangers self serve the law to entangle reality with destruction of our inner fiber!!

I don't want a paper hanger,, I want pride of America to return!!!!!!

Lets carefully look at the question that was asked at the debate and I noticed how the reporters never quote the full question. they always paraphrase it in other to distort it. this episode reminds me of

"I never had a sexual relationship with that woman, Monica Lewinsky" not the mention the numerous dubious pardons. "I smoked but i did not inhale" once again the Clintons distorting the truth.

here is the full quesion that was asked.

QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.

In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.

And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them. We've been talking about Iraq -- one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they're going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses.

They have been acting irresponsibly up until this point. But if we tell them that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that they are going to have to carry some weight, in terms of stabilizing the region.

from this full transcript you can see Obama mentioned send a signal in terms of diplomatic efforts to Iran and Syria.

CAN YOU HILLARY SUPPORTERS PLEASE TELL ME HOW IT IS POSSIBLE FOR THE UNITED STATES PRESIDENT TO SEND A DIPLOMATIC SIGNAL without initiating the so called ground level diplomatic work?  What signal does Hillary answer send; I am not willing to meet  cause you might use me for your propaganda!

also the question also suggest in the spirit of the lasting peace that has lasted ever since the seventies. This means the intention of such a meeting would be to achieve lasting peace NOT COFFEE:) and the questioner also recognises the bold move as well which created the peace and which was critizied at the time by people like Hillary but has resulted in lasting peace till today.

so my second question is why would a US president shy away from an opportunity to achieve long and lasting peace with so called hostile regimes and use fear of loosing the PR war as an excuse.

that shows lack of courage and leadership from Hillary Clinton.

what a shame.

Hillary looks even more stupid arguing this point and she is loosing hands down

wake up from your slumber people and pay attention because it is time to turn the page.

Thank you.


Check out this increadible new video that shows who is on the right

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyqAR4lJCmw

I still can't stop thinking about this whole "prestige of the United States President put at risk" defense.

Is this how Hillary sees the presidency? Prestige?

I mean the US presidency doesn't have prestige, in Europe or the middle east.  The next president isn't inheriting a golden throne where one can look down upon other nations.

This superiority attitude won't work.

Prestige?

One of the greatest challenges of the next president is to earn the respect of the world, and that person will need some humility.

The politics of hope?  This is an oxymoron.  Let's stick with the audacity of hope. Further her question is disingenuous. Why would anybody think that Obama's expression of what he was about was an invitation to kick him around with his consent? This type of thinking is typical of the imperial mindset/worldview. Empire is fundamentally incompatible with democracy.  It is the do what I say do, not what I do mode of thinking and acting. That's how someone, who is supposed to be considered logical and rational can, on the one hand dictate to another that not only should that other not have something, but should not even have the knowledge to acquire that thing for self, while the someone should not only keep what's in hand of the same thing, but should seek global hegemony by building further on that same thing.  Pray tell, who is it that has been the only one to drop nuclear bombs on another?  The arrogance of the imperial mindset borders on insanity. The propensity of members of the species Homo sapiens to rationalize and project borders on the fantastic: "They can't be trusted to hold such devastating things. After all, they are mad, crazy that is, and evil."  Who is that have dropped nuclear bombs?  Who is it, that when, on the one hand, they are discussing immigration policy, imply one thing by national borders, while, on the other hand, when discussing national interests, essentially imply something else by national borders?  Yes, democracy IS the best system, but, again, empire is fundamentally incompatible with democracy.

As for putting the power and prestige of the U.S. at risk, it's the imperial mindset that implicitly conflates power with prestige.  Pray tell, with the militarism of the U.S. ---- what's the size of the Pentagon budget? And some think it's not large enough! ---- how can anyone conceive of putting the power of the empire at risk by talking to someone who would be, relatively speaking, akin to an ant talking to (or more believably, listening to) an elephant. This is ludicrous. Maybe you really DO believe that us salt of the earth out here (those of us who are not the wretched of the earth) are just feeble-brained mammals taking up space, perhaps unnecessarily, in your world. We get it, we KNOW that you can annihilate whomever you want whenever you want. Yet as said elsewhere, man cannot live by bread alone.  Also, life would not be worth living, cowering and genuflecting to your arrogant dictating every moment of every hour of every day of every week of every month of every year, etc., etc.  As for prestige, well, prestige implies, let's say, admiration.  It implies being positively disposed to leadership. Now, of course, there are only two ways to lead, by inspiration and by example and they are not mutually exclusive.  This is the antithesis of dictating, crass arrogance, do what I say do not what I do, the how-dare-these-numbskull-nincompoops-show- reticence-towards-our-pronouncements-much-less- challenge-us mindset, etc., etc.

Re Obama, how does it go again?  Mind what you wish for: Metaphorical vision ----- a tiger by the tail running on concrete.

Nick, you didn't answer my question. I'll repeat it. The question is are YOU ready to accept the possibilty of an african american male as president of the united states?? It means nothing to say racism is real. There will always be bigoted people in the world, but let's be honest there has never been a time in history when racism has been less than it is now. I find your arguement extremely close minded and grasping at best.

Are you suggesting racism is real but sexism is not?? Most national polls show that more americans are more open to the idea of black man as president before a woman, but polls are only good has the honesty within the people who are doing them.

Let's be clear about this, I don't hate anyone. If Hillary is indeed the nominee I haven't decided if I'll vote for her or not.  My issue with her is that you shouldn't get to become president of the united states if you voted for the 2002 authorization that allowed Bush to go to war in Iraq.  23 democratic senators got it right. Why didn't she??? NO ONE has been able to answer that question. I feel she's an opportunist who puts her own ambitions ahead of what is really best for the country.  That's why I'm not supporting her.

If you don't like Obama--don't like him b/c of his position. Don't hide behind the extremely old world thinking that a black man can't be elected president.  I'm not sure that thinking is all that different from these "racist" you say that will never vote for Obama

Hillary is right, Hillary is right Hillary is right.

She did not say "Don't engage with Iran, N. Korea, Cuba, etc."  She says you must lay the groudwork and have an agenda to discuss before you show up.  

I never go to any meeting without knowing who will be there, what are we going to talk about, and what is the result we hope to attain.  It's just common sense if you ask me.

Obama has twisted Hillary's statements for short term political gain... just like every other politician.  Sorry folks, he's no better than anyone else.

America be warned ! Don't vote a desperate candidate as president. Hillary is desperate and will do anything to win this election...its all in our hands to be smart with our votes

Wake up people..How about Laura Bush for president? That's right...she has been in the white house for long enough as wife to the president and that's "experince". Don't forget Hillary supported the war up until 1.8 yrs ago when she realised she was left holding the bag and now she's been having a major makeover....We need a president who will make the right decision when it counts the most especially where our young men and women's lives are involved. Obama is the future.

HRC is not tuff as nails! If she was tuff she would have left the president in the white house and stood up for her own self-respect and showed America what a truly strong woman would do. Instead she pimped herself for her own political gain..........the worse example of a woman I want my children to see!

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