I decided to watch Hardball and was interested about the leaders of Obama and Hillary campaigns tear into each other.  The Clinton guy that was acting so strange and so afraid of saying anything on O'Reiley the other night really didn't show much passion in his arguments against the Obama guy.  Hillary, time to find some people with some fight in them.

"The tussle could be a turning point in the Democratic race, which has seen little direct engagement between the top two candidates"

I am not covinced hillary and obama are the top 2 candidates, edwards popularity is being squelched pretty effectivly by the media, I suspect that in the nation as a whole he is the dem candidate of choise

As a mainstream independent thinking democrat, here's my perspective. Clinton/Wolson got whupped on this scirmish. They called attention to their biggest vulnerability--their own naivete in allowing Bush/Cheney to take us to war. I think Bush=Lite fits well. Part of our problem in the world today is that we aren't talking to the bad guys. Talking to them isn't a sign of weakness. I think the pararellel of Kennedy/Nixon/Reagan efforts to work w/ the other guys gaining world stature--and leading to substantative progress w/ China/USSR is strong w/ the American people. And, two of the three were consdiered popular successful presidents. And Nixon's problems weren't caused by his opening dialogue w/ the bad guys. The Bush theory of only talking to like thinking people is a known failure execpt among the under a rock crowd.

This hurt Hillary and helped Obama.

As a mainstream independent thinking democrat, here's my perspective. Clinton/Wolson got whupped on this scirmish. They called attention to their biggest vulnerability--their own naivete in allowing Bush/Cheney to take us to war. I think Bush=Lite fits well. Part of our problem in the world today is that we aren't talking to the bad guys. Talking to them isn't a sign of weakness. I think the pararellel of Kennedy/Nixon/Reagan efforts to work w/ the other guys gaining world stature--and leading to substantative progress w/ China/USSR is strong w/ the American people. And, two of the three were consdiered popular successful presidents. And Nixon's problems weren't caused by his opening dialogue w/ the bad guys. The Bush theory of only talking to like thinking people is a known failure execpt among the under a rock crowd.

This hurt Hillary and helped Obama.

Who are the bad guys we are not talking to?  What progress would you intend to make with them?

The question was will you commit, in the first year of your presidency, to meet without conditions with these world leaders.  Obama said yes, Clinton said no, to a meeting in the first year without conditions.  Hillary did not say she would NEVER meet, just that she would use ambassadors and envoys to test the waters first. That, folks, is diplomacy.

Syria has been mentioned numerous times. And Mike..ask the candidates that question.

I have just returned from a wonderful trip to Spain and the UK during which I  experienced how much the world has changed since I last visited Europe about five years ago.  I was struck by the extent to which I felt "at home"; maybe it was the familiar corporate  buisinesses, maybe it was how gracious and helpful the people were in the places I visited, maybe the differences in the past were more about time, history and economics than about anything essentially human. This experience made me realize not only in an intellectual way, but in a clear, realistic way, that as an American, my place in the world has shifted, politically, economically and morally.  With this shift, our leaders must begin to consider all of the issues of foreign policy very differently than in the past. I am not reassured by politicians who speak about their experience in the world as it was 8 to 16 years ago.  I am not confident that those who have lived in the protected environment of privilege and power during the last 16 years have a sense of the world as it truly is.  Without the perspective of the world as it is, how can any individual or group of individuals hope to make sound decisions about policies that have national, global and generational consequences.  Much of what I saw during my trip reflected the way in which other countries have learned from us, and yet, there was much in what I experienced that taught me how our country is also enriched and even shaped by our global connections.  We have no option but to blaze new pathways of communication with all the nations of the world in order to continue to be a pioneering force and a mediating might in the global political arena.  We must have leaders who can think creatively about the ways in which those new pathways can be cleared for to access effective solutions of global conflicts.  

The recent debate highlighted Barack Obama's ability to forsee the necessity of being in conversation with other countries, yes, even our enemies,  to give shape and substance to our future in relation to the world community.  Those nations that can solve their problems without costly military conflicts have historically been and will in the future be in the best position to support the health and well-being of its citizens in a world of shrinking resources and increasing challenges.  

I believe our country needs a generational leap out of our faulty discourse with the world which will only be possible if we work to elect leaders who have the ability to envision new efforts in every aspect of government and the courage to speak boldly while at the same time, understanding the consequences and responsibilities of their actions and their words.  I see these qualities in Barack Obama.  I have no doubt that he will be able to move this country forward renewing our most valuable resources, ingenuity and diversity as the challenges of the 21st century continue to present themselves.  

I hope as this campaign progresses, Barack Obama will continue to lead the way in helping America to redefine itself as an America that can become even more a beacon of hope for the world by rising out of the ashes of a crippling war, bigotry, poverty, cynicism, and  clever rhetoric to achieve a greatness that will establish the foundations for a thriving America in the 21st century.  

"Who are the bad guys we are not talking to?  What progress would you intend to make with them?"

Iran and Syria. We need to engage with them to stabilize Iraq. The “bury your head in the sand” kind of diplomacy just doesn’t work.

I think the real tragedy, is that this event will weaken the Democratic ticket in 2008. I was hoping of a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinto ticket. This would have been a powerful ticket but now it will most likely not happen.

I don't understand how replying to being called naive, irresponsible and silly is interfering with the politics of hope.

And I don't think what Clinton said was particularly malicious either.

Look there's a genuine difference of opinion. At least we have THAT in the democratic field.

Like Clinton said earlier this year, the repugs are run like a plantation

DB,, I see you are apart of the Clinton/Karl Rove playbook.  That ship won't sail this time.  The question was not will you Committ it was will you be WILLING.  If they want to have the "Bush-Lite "label dropped using Karl Rove strategies won't help.

Good try though...truly Bush-lite  !!!

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?

Lets get Iran's Ahmadinejad and Syria's al-Assad in the White House Rose Garden pronto.  Get them signing some papers to make it all better.

Worked with Arafat.

Undecided Independent - please decide, and make up your mind.  Times-a-wasting.

WE DO NOT NEED THE USA, HOWEVER WERE GOING TO TAKE A 3 WEEK VACATION, SO STICK AROUND.

Bush - Cheney light is right on. Hillary voted for their war, now she wants to follow their policy of refusing to enter into dialogue with our critics. In the first year of a Democratic Presidency we better learn that to maintain the strength of our democracy we have to listen to others. I don't know if I'm for Obama yet, but I certainly can't vote for Hillary now.

Yiannis,  I have no problem with honest debate or differences.  I believe most people don't.  What I think you see most Obama supporters reacting to is the Hillary Bush/Rove style tactics.

 Examples were very evident on Hardball last night with her spokesperson trying to substitute the word "commit" for "willing", like Db above.  Trying to imply that Obama had already agreed to meet with them, thereby breaking the law.  He was smacked down on that one bad.  Then there was the race card...Jews against Muslims because of  Obama's name ( which is not MUSLIM)..Chris called him on that one too!!

The fallout maybe the only person that would ever be acceptable to an Obama supporter IF he did not win would be ABC (Anybody but Clinton).  Reality is that it was probably almost there anyway.

Cindy Weinberg-Thanks for your post. I have visited Europe twice in the last 5 years and was struck by our much they admire Americans but despise the Bush administration as nothing more than pure arrogance.  

I saw Hardball yesterday, too. That Wolfson is a complete jerk. Is it any surprise he works for Hillary ?
The point came up that Obama opposed the Iraq war in 2002 when he was running for the Senate.

The only explanation Wolfson could come up with for Hillary's vote supporting the war was that public opinion was 80% for the war !!

So instead of reading the National Intelligence Estimate to see if the war was winnable, what the consequences of war could be, or if the war was justified.... Hillary was reading the polls, instead.

Hillary was completely irresponsible in supporting the war.
She only began to oppose the war when public opinion turned against the war.

Is that leadership on Hillary's part ?
No, that's political opportunism !!

Obama didn't violate the "politics of hope" doctrine. This is a race for the presidency. He's ALLOWED to defend himself against attacks from competitors. The public would think he's an idiotic WUSS if he DIDN'T defend himself. If he's not strong enough to defend himself against Hillary Clinton (a WOMAN), how the hell is he going to stand up to sadistic world dictators?! It's not whether he responds, but HOW that determines whether he has violated his "high level politics" doctrine. He has NOT. Clinton's rationale is that Obama can't defend himself and if he does, he's violating his pledge to play clean. She's initiating attacks against her opponents, then saying that they're not allowed to respond or THEY are playing dirty politics. People see through it. Hillary is just jealous because the CNN and Fox News focus groups for the YouTUBE debate voted that Obama WON the debate. She's jealous.

glad to see the dems getting some debate practice in-----it will go well against the republicans while they defend the policies of the failed Bush administration

I think they're going to turn the whole things around and make-up by early next week. http://www.enewsreference.com

If Hillary was completely irresponsible in supporting the war, so were the majority of Congress and the majority of Americans.  

Dont talk to your enemy Ms Clinton,just bomb these fools, we have been doing it in Faluja, how is that.

Winston Churchill said, Jaw jaw beats war war.
   This is a  win win for the insurgent and a mixed bag for the front runner. He get to use words like strength, change and confidence, courage and engagement, rising to meet the hope and challenges of the world. The opposites are left with fear and caution, process and the high privilege of talking to the great and august American President. Its very interesting.  
   

I find it interesting that the most naive comments seem to come from those supporting Obama.  I'm no fan of Hillary, but on pure policy she has my man Obama on the ropes.  He doesn't know how to properly engage with these types of countries and, very unfortunately, he is showing it.  

This pretty much sums up the argument...Quite insightful

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

Carrie, Congress and Hillary had many more facts and resources when making their decision in supporting the war than did the majority of Americans.  Unfortunately, Americans major source of information is the media which played on our immense patriotism after 9/11 to frame the war as a necessary retaliation and hid the true Bush agenda from the public.  

John Doe, what are you saying, Obama should personally meet with leaders of these types of countries in his FIRST year?  I love Obama, but you are off your nut!  I'm fumed that he blew this so bad.  Further, you are making our guy look worse by taking sound bytes and using them in the same way Limbaugh would.  Obama and Clinton should drop this fight though, because I don't want the Republicans gaining ground on either of them over this.  Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama 2008!  

Barack had to respond; he had no choice. Hillary has learned a lesson because it hurt her more than him. Maybe they will take Edwards' advice and concentrate on the issues and the Republicans

Carrie,  The majority in congress or American People aren't running for PRESIDENT and if they were they should be held accountable too and their judgement challenged.  Going with the flow is a bad arguement.  Find another.

Since when defending yourself from attacks become "politic as usual"? Just because Obama is fresh, does that mean he has to just zip his mouth & lay still when being punched?  Hillary Clinton attacked him first, she's the one who professed unwillingness to meet with country leaders whom, just few months prior, she said she will.  She's the one who's the next morning went on the attack saying Obama's "irresponsible & naive".  Who went on with an attack? HILLARY DID!  Now that he's responding, pointing out the facts of her inconsistencies, the media calls him playing politic as usual?  Hillary has the nerve calling Obama irresponsible while she's the one who voted for the war, sending our men and women to sacrifice their lives & families, without even bother to read the necessary important reports involving the Iraq war.  She's the one who didn't read the NIE report, she's the one who voted for the war trusting BUSH to run it without reading the NIE report, and she has the nerve to call Obama "irresponsible"?

I guess only HILLARY is given permission by the media to do all the pointings.  God forbid when others start questioning & pointing out her inconsistencies.  How embarrassing especially MSNBC has those proofs in its possession.  All you have to do just check Keith Olbermann interview w/ Clinton, and there you have it! One of dozen of proofs of Clinton's complete opposite position from the one she held on the last debate. And there plenty more of those laying around.

Ck, ck, ck.... to think people won't notice...

I think it was overblown too..but watching Hardball yesterday I couldn't help but think how much Wolfson often sounded like the Republican mouth pieces that come on that show. He even blasted one of Obama's districts as being 'liberal' so he wasn't under much pressure to vote against the war. It was kind of startling.

The main reason "real" politicians don't want to talk and meet with unpopular leaders of other countries is that they don't want the photo of them smiling and shaking hands with the dastard to be used by their political opponents in the next election. For example there are photos of: Rumsfeld shaking hands and smiling with Saddam Hussein, HW Bush with Noriega, Kissinger with Pinochet, Johnson with Marcos, Nixon with Mao, Reagan with Michael Jackson, Hillary with the pope.

Lyn, I am an Obama supporter and agree with him on the issue but at least we are having a disagreement...

Carrie,
The majority of the American people didn't have the information, the press didn't ask the right question.

But Hillary knew the evidence was lacking and voted for the Iraq war out of political calculation. So did Edwards.

Why did Wesley Clark the former Supreme Allied Commander call Iraq a war of choice back in 02? Hillary voted to give W a blank check. Deal with that reality. Edwards has dealt with it, to his credit. Now it's Hillary's turn to apologize.

Carrie, You seem to be supporting the idea that since everyone else thought the war was OK---it was OK that Hilllary thought is was too.  That's incorrect!!! 23 senators did not think it was OK to go to war in Iraq. Why did Hillary Clinton??  Could it be that she wanted to run for president one day????  That's simply put is NOT LEADERSHIP!!!!

nuanced - You hit it on the head better than anybody, and, unfortunately, Hillary actually needs to be given credit for admitting that fact during the debate.  

Geez, I'm sounding like a Hillary supporter. :(

Have any of you guys seen this vidoe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyqAR4lJCmw&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Emydd%2Ecom%2Fstory%2F2007%2F7%2F26%2F16522%2F3938

Obama scores...BIG

The media pundits are missing the big picture here and Americans are getting it.  The point is not who gave the most polished foreign policy answer.  Most Americans are not foreign policy gurus.  Sen. Clinton gave a classic Foreign Policy 101 textbook answer that would have made her college professors proud, while Obama defied conventional wisdom.  In a change election, where most Americans are rejecting exactly that same kind of wisdom that took us to war with Iraq, the latter wins.

As a Cuban-American, I can tell you that ignoring Fidel Castro for 50 years has not accomplished a damn thing.  Clinton talks about not being "propaganda tools" for dictators but ignoring them has been their greatest propaganda tool EVER.

Obama's response may not have been as polished or politically calculated as Clinton -- but voters can sense that he is proposing genuine change and Clinton sounds too much like "Bush-Cheney Lite."

Obama has my vote.

The ISSUE is and has been throughout recorded history
JUDGMENT.
Thousands had/have/will have experience; it is how you
weigh that experience (your's and the multitude of advisors) with JUDGMENT and make the proper intelligent decision for the short, medium and long
term. North Korea (after 50 years to site just one
example)could have been different with one on one contact.  Take a lesson from Sarkozy.
Obama is crazy to get in a p---ing contest; he
should just EMPHASIZE his proven Judgment (extrapolating it to all the other fields) - if you have got it you have got it - and he will be the next President of the United States.
Rein in the same o same o consultants.

Barack has Hillary pinned in the corner on this one, friends. Obama lokks bold and unafraid and straightforward and progressive, whereas Hillary looks like... well, Bush Lite.

Wolfson seemed on the verge of tears on Hardball. Axelord was clearly in the 'ol catbird seat yesterday.  

Nice video. It make it very clear to me that it was foolish for Hillary to throw that stone when she was living in a glass house on that issue.  PS -- I am not anti-Hillary, I just want her to stop making silly mistakes that will hurt her later if she has to run against a Republican.

If you're a leader, you lead good and bad guys and that means, you means you'll have to find away to deal with bad guys -i.e talking and meeting them. Sturbonness only makes things worse -and it makes Hillary worse as Obama stands high intellectually. You don't make peace with "just good People", you mantain it as you make peace with bad guys. You can act tough and end up weak unfortunately! So Barack Obama has a heart and not just meanness!

Carrie:
So you agree that Hillary was irresponsible for supporting the war ?
That's progress.
Wasn't she also naive in believing that Bush wouldn't invade Iraq unless it was justified ?
Wasn't she naive to put her trust in Bush ?

I've got a bridge I'd love to sell her !!
It's the Golden Gate and it's world famous !!
Let's get in touch !!

” Would you be willing to, in the first year of your presidency, without precondition, in Washington or anywhere else, agree to meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?”

There is no talk of promising to meet all five leaders in his first year. Clinton was the one that tried to twist Obama's words, change the question and then attacked him by calling him naive and inexperienced. Those are Bush-Cheney lite tactics. It is not silly to point that out. She is expecting the voters to be dumb enough to fall for it.

I think what is shocking are Americans who are so lazy to check their facts and vote for soundbites and not the truth then start compalining that the country is going down the drain.

Say what you will about Obama but do try to say the truth. Frankly Clinton has only shown her true colors by using Rove tactics to distort what the question on foreign policy was and Obama's answer. The question which can be read on CNN transcript states "are you willing to etc? Willing not committed, I'm British and sorry to say find it really amusing that a good number of Americans have no clue about the nuances of the english language, go theck a thesaurus or google the words 'willing and 'commit' and you'll see 2 different meanings.

I think the joke is on any Hillary fan or independent who cannot see the difference and the fact that this controversy only exists in Hillary's mind and the fact that she is smart enough to know that the media and a sizable part of the public are quite gullible and not just intelligent enough to know when they are being led by their noses.

The fact is 23 senators voted against war, Hillary didn't even bother to read NIE report because she was more cold and calculating about her ambition to become president at the expense of human beings who are dead and dying.

If anyone of you is blinded by love for Hillary to this fact, then Lord help this country. You tell me how would you feel if you lost a son, brother, loved one and found out that someone who voted for them to be sent to their death didn't even lose any sleep studying/investigating the whole facts. Some of you say big deal she voted blah blah blah. I say why don't you get off your backside and go fight in Iraq right now, so easy to be an armchair pundit while decent men and women are dying, where is your humanity and compassion? War is a terrible thing but sometimes for our safety has to be fought like WWII but this war is something else. Well what can you expect from a nation were 40% of its population still believes that Sadaam (though a despot) was directly behind 9/11.

Hillary, Bush, corporate America and the media are playing majority of you for fools and from an outsider trust me when I say they are clearly succeeding

Non-engagement doesn't work. We have 50 years of failed foriegn policy in Cuba and North korea as proof that non-engagement doesn't work.

Rogue countries we have engaged directly like China, the USSR, and Libya have made far more progress than the stagnant nations we choose to ignore as if it will advance our policies.

Obama is right, Bush is wrong, and Hillary has once again danced around the question...

Neither one of them can keep me from popping out of the well.

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