Biden has it figured out.  He knows that what happens in Iraq, and in Baghdad, has long term implications in all of the Middle East.  Defeat is not an option in Iraq for the US.

Obama, again, has stepped into another mess.  Why should the US normalize relations with Cuba?  Who does it benefit? Certainly not the US.  It starting to look like Obama is angling for an endorsement from Michael Moore.  One of the characteristics of Obama that is not widely reported by the media is how far to the left he is on the political spectrum.  Barack is shoulder to shoulder with the likes of Ted Kennedy, Babs Boxer, and Dick Durbin on liberal causes.  No one that liberal has ever won the Presidency.

Edwards, you have to admire him for sticking to the "Two-Americas" theme.  But, John, it just isn't working.  At some point you have to cut your loses and move on to other horizons.

Ouch to the Clintons

He certainly has become a celebrity candidate.  People just can't get enough of this guy. What a president he will be when you have MOST of the people in this country fawning over him.  It will feel good to absolutely adore your president again.  JKF anyone?

Obama is getting desperate. We will see more attacks and more plans to try to energize his campaign.

John Edwards LOL.....

John Edwards doing a poverty tour right now is the stupidest idea I have ever heard of.  He better stay the heck out of New Orleans, I'm sure there are some 34 people that would like to get their hands on him after the hedge fund he had socked his money away in was involived in kicking those poor folks out of their house.  Is that what you mean John by two Americas?  Those who can have a house to live in and those who cannot?  Haircuts, treasure, $55,000 speeches on poverty, hedge fund kicking people out on the streets.....he is about as bad as the Clintons.

Bill Clinton as Mighty Mouse;

"here I come to save the day"

Hillary just has more experience than Obama.  Change with out experience is just sometime else.  Change with experience is a strategic plan.

Will someone PLEASE put a rag in her mouth.  Can anyone one say so much while saying so little.

"PANDER BEAR" award to Hillary the Pander Clinton.

My guess is Obama is speaking about Cuba while Clinton is speaking to Cuban American voters in Florida.

To me, seems really telling that someone would pick a statement like us normalizing relations with Cuba if they move toward democracy to criticize. Why?

Consider countries we do have normalized relations with, which are much worse in terms of human rights and destablizing actions than Cuba. Look at Iraq, which was a supported friend before it was an enemy, even while it was employing WMD against Kurds and Iranians.

Like I've said before, we'll probably only move that way once Fidel Castro dies, assuming he hasn't already. His brother has signaled a willingness for a thaw with the U.S. and Obama is simply stating that his administration would be open to such considerations, given a move toward democracy there.

To answer the "why" question above, I see it as honesty versus pandering.

For those of you yesterday who might have been still left wondering after Van tried to throw around numbers and links that explained nothing and answered nothing about the candidates and ethics reform the article spells it out quite well.

On these, there are revealing differences among the Democratic front-runners.

Edwards was part of the legislative team working to pass the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, but lobbying and campaign reform were nowhere near the top of his agenda in the Senate.

During the 2004 campaign, Edwards gave a useful speech outlining his plan to limit lobbyists' influence. But, unlike the other Democratic candidates, he refused requests to reveal the identities of his big fundraisers. This time around, after considerable prodding, Edwards agreed to release the names of fundraisers -- all his fundraisers, with no specifics about how much they had collected. His campaign argues vehemently that it should be praised for this avalanche of information, not faulted. But the candidate knows who has reeled in $1,000 and who raised $100,000. Why shouldn't voters?

Clinton has shown no zeal for or even particular interest in the issue in the Senate; nor did she while in the White House. Indeed, as her handling of the health-care task force and Whitewater documents illustrate, Clinton's instinct is for secrecy, and her default position is to disclose only the minimum legally required. She consented to reveal her major fundraisers only after repeated editorial hammering -- and only after all the other leading Democratic contenders had agreed.

On this issue, Obama leads the pack -- I'd say PAC, but he (and Edwards) don't take their checks, either. He helped pass a far-reaching ethics and campaign finance bill in the Illinois state Senate and made the issue a priority on arriving in Washington. Much to the displeasure of his colleagues, Obama promoted an outside commission to handle Senate ethics complaints. He co-authored the lobbying reform bill awaiting President Bush's signature and pushed -- again to the dismay of some colleagues -- to include a provision requiring lawmakers to report the names of their lobbyist-bundlers.

He has co-sponsored bills to overhaul the presidential public financing system and public financing of Senate campaigns. It's nice to hear Clinton talk about how "we've got to move toward public financing" -- Edwards backs it, too -- but I don't see her name on those measures.

Obama readily agreed to identify his bundlers. Unlike Clinton and Edwards, he has released his income tax returns. Perhaps most important, Obama has pledged to take public financing for the general election if he is the Democratic nominee and his Republican opponent will do the same.

Any Democratic candidate wanting to "get the money out of American politics" (Clinton) or demonstrate that "the Democratic Party is the party of the people" (Edwards) ought to leap at this chance. The candidates' silence on Obama's public financing proposal -- they'll "consider" it -- has been more telling than anything they have actually said

Remember the issue of Bundlers came up.  That is how Lobbyist provide lots of $$$$$ to candidates.  obama has revealed who his bundlers are Hillary won't (wonder why).

Secrecy...do we want  4 more years of investigation by the other party.

Thanks WP for shinning light on all of Vans posturing and links yesterday trying to muddy the waters and the difference

Senator Clinton is one ambitious woman. Obsessed with relentless pursuit of power. Being President of the USA is a personal goal for her. She has been preparing her whole life for this. So she will do anything (ANYTHING) and say anything to get there.

She din't vote for Iraq war thinking what is best for the country. She thought how that vote will play out in her future pursuit of power. She stayed with a disfunctional marriage after being cheated so many times because she needs her last name "clinton" in her pursuit of power. She compromised her self respect, dignity and honor as long as it helps to become more powerful. She became a senator from NY only because she needs that title on her resume to make her case. She was wife of an elected governor or an elected president although she claim those years as her "qualification and experience". She needed to be in public office for herself. Hillary claim she knows how to beat Republican. Well, every single elected Senator who is in the race beat an Republican in their own election.

On the other hand Obama is a selfless man. He never tried to convert his fancy degrees into big fat pay check but dedicated his early career in improving other people's lives. He has witnessed the pain and suffering of people 1st hand by being there in person, knocking the doors, walking on street. Making an impact on people's lives has been improtant for him. He did not do those as a "roadmap" to become a president or create his resume. People all across the country asked him to run for president.

So it's important for Hillary to become the next US president but it's important for people to see Obama being the next president. That's the main difference between the two. One for herself only, other for all of us. You choose what you want.

Nobody Cares!

Nobody Cares!

Cuba is one area that the US could make a huge difference. The embargo lost any value years ago and with it being our closest neighbor it would be better to open up and trade and vacation there. Nothing better than the power of the tourist dollar.

My grandfather used to go to Havana, in fact after he died a bunch of recipts were found in the pockets of old suit coats of his.

Castro is all but gone, if he is not already dead and we could isolate chaves by working with the Cuban government.

This is not a Dem or Rep problem but one that consumes more energy and paperwork than it produces. If wre put 1/10 of the monthly war cost into aide to Cuba the returns would be outstanding.

Plus just think of the internet business Roaul could do in old Chevy car parts. 3 UPS planes a day! What better way o clear out junk yards on an Island so you can bring in Hybrids.

Cuba is a beautiful Island and the fact that Americans have been denied access for my lifetime is Stupid.

No matter who is in the WH this situation will change as Castro will be gone sometime into the next Presidential term.  

Hillary Clinton is about 'business as usual'.
A little more pandering please, Hillary.

The embargo against Cuba never served a purpose.
We did business with Russia and China while they were/are communist dictatorships.
The US had a military alliance with racist apartheid South Africa and full diplomatic and trade relations.
Why is Cuban dictatorship unacceptable, but not Soviet or Chines or apartheid ?

Hillary Clinton, business as usual
If you like lying, pandering Washington insiders, you'll LOVE Hillary !!
(Business loves Hillary!!)

Damn, something Hiliary said that I actually agree with. Will I have to reassess my opinion of the Hiliary Machine?
Stay tuned.

I do not understand our foreign policy toward Cuba.  As I recall we hugged China with open arms saying the best way to bring about democracy and capitalism in China is to welcome them into the world body as a partner.  Yet Cuba, this small banana republic, that barely survives, especially after the fall of the Soviet Union, is public enemy number one.

We have much more to fear from China than we ever will from Cuba. Normalize relations with Cuba, they'll come around much faster to a more democratic country if there is a free exchange of ideas and culture than there is with them being isolated.

Just another goofy American policy.

Ah, Hillary, cautious and  unimaginative as ever.

I wish Senator Clinton could explain for me how Cuba's policies make that country unworthy of U.S. recognition while the policies of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, China and so many other non-democratic nations seem to be OK. Is the Cuban exile vote worth so much pandering?

If Hillary is so "experienced" - why was she foolish enough to vote for the war?  It's an empty slogan.

Great strategy! Wait for Barak to say something courageous, bold and correct and then criticize him by saying the do-nothing status quo is best. Brilliant!  At least it gives him a preview of of what he will hear from the Republican candidate in the general election.

You are both so right Arshad & Lyn. stating that Clinton's instinct is for secrecy, and her default position is to disclose only the minimum legally required & She became a senator from NY only because she needs that title on her resume to make her case. She was wife of an elected governor or an elected president although she claim those years as her "qualification and experience". She needed to be in public office for herself. Hillary claim she knows how to beat Republican. Well, every single elected Senator who is in the race beat an Republican in their own election.

But think about this too;
The fact that Hillary has absolutely nothing to show in terms of accomplishments (and she brags about how she knows how to beat the REPUBLICANS - LOL),
both in the senate and outside of her husbands political career, most women would or should look upon her as someone trading on her husbands name, organization, and fundraising machine. She's an empty suit who traded her dignity for her 'political viability' as Bill once said.
Obama has defied expectations at every turn and has achieved quite a bit on his own, and we need a Strong President not someone who states what they have
accomplished somethings but nothing to show for it.
On the health care issue, she just plan mismanged that, where the hell is this plan now?
Do we want her to mismange our country too?
And Clinton couldn`t explain the Cuban Policies Bruce
, because she was not up to Obama`s speed on that issue.

I say,No- No more Clintons enough is enough.

Where Van now - Huh?

trading with Cuba:

could get some great cigars, but liberals would ruin that with their $10 tax on cigars...

maybe get back all those things that the Cuban government stole from the American owners, but they probably ran those things into the ground and then some......

some great deals on those 1950's classic cars that are still running.....

Maybe some good deals on sugar.....

maybe some hot new nightclubs opening up with Cuban dancers.......

Maybe so many people will will stop swimming over here and maybe the sharks will go feed somewhere else......

Hillary is a strategic liability of democrats, PERIOD.

This is the right time for an Obama presidency. Hillary is simply unreliable. It's all about herself, not about people. Judge these facts:

1) Would take different position on Iraq based on latest news and say it as it fits to the day's headlines

2) Won't release documents during her days as first lady

3) Won't release her tax return of 2006. Won't release her senate ear marks. everything is so secret!! why?

4) Being wife of an elected state governor or elected president is considered as "experience and qualification" in her 35 yrs of experience

5) Can't name one accomplishment in "35 years of experience" that have a profound impact either on people's lives or the government.

Time of an Obama presidency is NOW. Hillary is way too divisive. She will galvanize all the republicans to support whoever their nominee is regardless of the mess in the country and will keep many democrats at home on the day of election.

Even if she gets elected, dems will loose control in congress and senate like many field candidates are predicting. It took 12 yrs for Dem to get a slim control on congress. She won't accomplish anything with a Republican controlled congress. After her deeply partisan & divisive term, I am not sure if people will elect another dem in white house soon. So it's OBAMA time and it's NOW or never. Hillary won't cut it in 2008 and even if she does, it will compromise democrat's strength in many ways.

As usual, Obama is the quickest mouth in the country.
Sure it sounds good, but by what criteria is the country "taking step" towards a democracy.  Even if the Cubans said so, that doesn't make it so.

Chavez in Venezuela is ostensibly the head of a democratic state, but does that make him a good guy or demand instant credibility.

Let's see what the Cubans are actually doing not merely agree with some feel good statement that we should normalize whenever there is some nebulous progress towards democracy.

I guess most of you are too young to remember the Cuban crisis under JFK.

Nick Dorsey....where in Obama's statement about Cuba did he say we should work towards normalizing relations with Cuba based in what the Cuban government says? Obama said Cuba would have to show some concrete steps towards democracy first, which means ACTIONS, so why are you distorting his position? WTF????

This incessant need to misrepresent everything Obama says is starting to get old...really old.

Another thing, we have normalized relations with Libya...is Libya a democracy now? What about Saudi Arabia...is that a democracy?

Spare us the BS...your attempt to attack Obama just fell woefully flat.

I am too young to remember that, Nick. But I read about it.

I also read about how the U.S. preceded that missile crisis with a failed insurgent invasion and not-so-secret assassination plan. But I guess if you're a suddenly out of work but still wealthy former casino owner, you can get the U.S. to pretty much do anything for you.

So Castro sided with the Soviets - more than 45 years ago. We now have normalized relations with Vietnam. We also have normalized relations, I believe, with all the former Soviet Republics. And if we don't already, we most likely will soon have normalized relations with Libya.

China gets Most Favored Nation status.

I believe we still have normalized relations with Venezuela - your example.

What exactly has Cuba done to earn such a long-lasting, scornful, super enemy status? Why is the extra degree of caution so necessary with them?

No doubt about it, Barack has the best speech writers.  He's real good at reading them to.

Original thoughts in his head?  <Crickets-chirping>

I AM SICK AND TIRED OF HILLARY SAYING SHE WON'T TALK!

SHE WON'T TALK TO OTHER LEADERS FOR DIPLOMACY'S SAKE,

SHE WON'T TALK ABOUT FOREIGN POLICY, SHE WON'T TALK ABOUT

HEALTH CARE, AND NOW SHE WON'T TALK ABOUT CUBA.



I AM SO TOTALLY OVER POLITICIANS WHO WON'T TALK TO ANYONE.





YOU CAN'T JUST GIVE THE WHOLE WORLD "THE SILENT TREATMENT".

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