Elaine Griffin, from Fla (above) is wrong, she sounds just like those extreme FEMINIST & ULTRA CONSERVATIVES, who attack Clinton and seek quick & easy solutions to very deep problems. Yes women are capable of doing good or even better decisions than men. Someone needs to tell you and the rest of the democratic candidates that BRAINS do not have sex. They seem to work better in the person who learns how to use them over the years.

History has plenty examples of women that had made world-wide impacts in the political & social life such as: Eva Peron in Argentina, Margaret Thatcher in England, Gandhi in India, Mother Teresa, Lady Diana in England, etc  and why NOT? Hillary Clinton in USA.

Attacking her private life decisions is a very low, cheap & desperate way of opposing the change that our country desperately needs. If anything senator Clinton has shown to all women in America & the world that she has integrity, that she values highly the traditional values of having families, with parents (father & mother), raising & educating their kids, she has thought us that marriage is a serious commitment in which partners agreed and sword to support each other in good and BAD. It requires hard work and NOT just cheap talk.

To all those social-conservatives also called Christians, and  who so blindly supported George Bush re-election because of his anti-gay campaign and later were so largely disappointed, now you have a woman with high moral convictions, who is NOT afraid to be  critiqued in public for making though decisions like offering forgiveness and understanding to preserve her family integrity.  I hope that you will support her and her new ideas for  the White House, unless of course, you are still attached to those ultra conservative ideas of Mr. Bush that have done so much damage to our country and its image world-wide.

To me Hillary Clinton describes a person with character and integrity  who takes commitment seriously and will not disappoint the American people.  I am a 38-year old electrical engineer from New Jersey who is also a practicing Catholic. My whole family will gladly support Mrs. Clinton for president.  What a better candidate than this woman. Let’s NOT be afraid of the change.

I believe the reason Hillary gets the "too polarizing" tag is because the republican propaganda machine has been demonizing her and ramming that concept down our throats since 1991.  If you say it enough times, it becomes the truth, right?
 But when I hear her speak and listen to her words, she knows her stuff.  She does come across as more presidential than all the other candidates (democrat or republican) and isn't that what we want in a president?  I will say I'm not happy with her vote regarding Iran, however, I believe if she were president she wouldn't do something stupid like Bush has done.

I beleive that the comeback to Hilary from the other canidates speak for themselves.  Most Gentlemen in America are raised with Family Values.  Do not speak to a lady unjustly.  Most Do Not!  Get real folks, Ms. Clinton knows this.  Those comments about I'll have to ask my husband is a joke.  Did you ask your husband to run for senate?  Do you ask him for permission to run for presidency.  Ok I believe in submissiveness but when it comes to your Job your Husband isn't doing it. You are the one and it isn't him the country or the US wants to be ran by or you for that matter.  Go Away Hilary!

I beleive that the comeback to Hilary from the other canidates speak for themselves.  Most Gentlemen in America are raised with Family Values.  Do not speak to a lady unjustly.  Most Do Not!  Get real folks, Ms. Clinton knows this.  Those comments about I'll have to ask my husband is a joke.  Did you ask your husband to run for senate?  Do you ask him for permission to run for presidency.  Ok I believe in submissiveness but when it comes to your Job your Husband isn't doing it. You are the one and it isn't him the country or the US wants to be ran by or you for that matter.  Go Away Hilary!

I beleive that the comeback to Hilary from the other canidates speak for themselves.  Most Gentlemen in America are raised with Family Values.  Do not speak to a lady unjustly.  Most Do Not!  Get real folks, Ms. Clinton knows this.  Those comments about I'll have to ask my husband is a joke.  Did you ask your husband to run for senate?  Do you ask him for permission to run for presidency.  Ok I believe in submissiveness but when it comes to your Job your Husband isn't doing it. You are the one and it isn't him the country or the US wants to be ran by or you for that matter.  Go Away Hilary!

Why are Russert, Matthews, Todd and Carlson and their Newsweek buddies begging the other candidates to attack Clinton?  Where were all of you when someone should have been pressing Bush before the previous elections?  Is this what MSNBC is all about now?  The other FOX??  Your antagonism toward Clinton is putting the whole focus on her and taking away from the other candidates.  Matthew's "interview" with Biden and Dodd was mostly an invitation to them to join in his harangue against Clinton and very little about them.  We need a presidential candidate who clearly understands the problems we face, has some concrete ideas how to solve them, is firm, strong, not spouting empty platitudes or making rash statements that will only come back to haunt this nation.  Now you guys get out of the way and let us make up our own minds!

What a joke this party is...........................................

People say that Hillary Clinton is for change, but I don't see it, at least not on the most important issues facing us: Iran, the "war on terror" and Iraq. If all of this stuff continues to eat up all of our money, then there won't be any funding available for health care reform or any other things here at home. And on those issues she sounds like she will keep up the "status quo", along with the Republicans!

Her vote with Lieberman just about made me THROW UP! We won't have to worry about how "well" Hillary would "probably" handle the situation in Iran if she hands Bush a war on a platter before January 2009. We will be stuck there too, and probably with a draft and gasoline rations to boot!

On the "War on Terrorism" she will keep the status quo as well. Terrorism is, in simple terms, a tactic used to achive a political goal, and declaring war on a tactic is just stupid.

We are being lied to when we are told that the terrorists are simply jealous because we're the richest and freest country in the world. The U.N. Human Development Index ranks countries with a formula that includes standard of living, etc. The U.S. for many years has been somewhere around number EIGHT, and the 7 countries ranked higher are not being attacked by al-Qaeda.

The REAL (political) issue is that we have, for so long, angered the people of the Middle East by backing Israel no matter how many U.N. resolutions they violate in grabbing land away from the Palestinians. And showing favoritism for not applying sanctions to Israel for developing nukes, but not signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or allowing inspections. Although the lowly foot soldiers often aren't motivated by politics, their leaders are.

I mention these things because Hillary is one of the biggest pro-Israel supporters, and is rewarded for it with lots of Israel's lobby money. If Hillary is elected, we will make no progress against anti-American terrorism because she won't change a thing. She will just continue the status quo of calling everyone who disagrees with Israeli/U.S. hegemony a terrorist who needs to be killed. If a country speaks out against us, label them a terrorist group, and give our military a license to kill them. This only continues the tit-for-tat. America should never have been pulled into a tit-for-tat in the first place, as you will never win by stooping to the level of the terrorists.

Whoever wins this presidency will have to figure out how to win our friendships back with the mainstream Muslims all over the Middle East, because only they can best rein in their extremists. But don't look to Hillary to do this. The only ones who talk sense regarding these important issues are Biden, Kucinich and Gravel.

Bushies old boys network has done enough damage to this country.  I would LOVE to see a women in office.  I think Hillary has the backbone to stand up to the republicans BS and I think her agenda will promote not only womens' rights but peoples rights and not just continue to spend all our money on WAR!!!  Women have been running American households for years (women write 7 out of 10 checks written in the US, 90% of daughters take care of their aging parents compared to 10% of sons and women have had the burden of caring for their children, housework and holding down full-time jobs for decades).  It's the women who many times "talk men down" when they are being irrational about their work, their children, and household purchases.  I'm ready for a women in the White House!!!  

I don't understand how anyone can't like Obama.  He is the only one that is saying repeatedly what needs to be done as a whole to help the country in it's entirety. WE MUST STOP THE HIPOCRACY WITHIN OUR POLITICS.  If you want a better nation...then help the poorest people.  We must come together to drive this nation in the right direction to attain success.  He doesn't duck questions, u ask him a question...he answers it. If you try to ask one of those "trick" questions that he was being asked during the debate.  He explains his answer first, then tells you how he feels about it.  We NEED HONESTY IN THE WHITE HOUSE.  That is all that people want in this country, lead by example, and don't insult our intelligence.  Don't tell us what we want to hear, tell us what we need to know.  Obama does this, and if you can not see it, then you are simply not listening to the man speak.

If Obama was elected...the world would change.  We all know this.  The people of the Middle East would look at America in a whole new light.  They would be alot more willing to sit down and talk with us.  We as Americans are very arrogant and condescending when it comes to other countries.  Why not have a president who is strong, yet humble to lead us. If you don't vote for Obama...you have lost your mind.  It's time for a change...old white (republican)men have been running this nation for a long time, it's gotten us nowhere (except for CLinton). Listen to your common sense, arent you tired of the same old song and dance...vote for Obama...please people

RJ-

You seem quite informed (I'm laughing).  At least when Clinton lied, no one died.  You seem like the type of person who doesn't ACTUALLY know anything but likes to PUSH your republican views upon anyone who isn't rude enough to tell you to SHUT UP.  Don't tell me who to or not to vote for.  That isn't your right or your place. If you want to hear from people in the military why don't you educate yourself and read this article from 7 soldiers about their experience in Iraq (2 of whom are now dead and one of who was seriously injured).  This article definately didn't get the run of publicity that the Petraus report did but it wasn't pro-administration so that doesn't suprise me.  Over 90% of the soliders who are dying and in the thick of the IRAQ war are non-commissioned officers.  When is the last time you heard of a General being killed in IRAQ...........to my knowledge never!!!  
The War as We Saw It
 

By BUDDHIKA JAYAMAHA, WESLEY D. SMITH, JEREMY ROEBUCK, OMAR MORA, EDWARD SANDMEIER, YANCE T. GRAY and JEREMY A. MURPHY
Published: August 19, 2007
New York Times
Baghdad

Enlarge This Image

Paul Hoppe
Related
2 G.I.’s, Skeptical but Loyal, Die in a Truck Crash in Iraq (Sept. 13)
VIEWED from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is indeed surreal. Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day. (Obviously, these are our personal views and should not be seen as official within our chain of command.)
The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by failures elsewhere. What soldiers call the “battle space” remains the same, with changes only at the margins. It is crowded with actors who do not fit neatly into boxes: Sunni extremists, Al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen, criminals and armed tribes. This situation is made more complex by the questionable loyalties and Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army, which have been trained and armed at United States taxpayers’ expense.
A few nights ago, for example, we witnessed the death of one American soldier and the critical wounding of two others when a lethal armor-piercing explosive was detonated between an Iraqi Army checkpoint and a police one. Local Iraqis readily testified to American investigators that Iraqi police and Army officers escorted the triggermen and helped plant the bomb. These civilians highlighted their own predicament: had they informed the Americans of the bomb before the incident, the Iraqi Army, the police or the local Shiite militia would have killed their families.
As many grunts will tell you, this is a near-routine event. Reports that a majority of Iraqi Army commanders are now reliable partners can be considered only misleading rhetoric. The truth is that battalion commanders, even if well meaning, have little to no influence over the thousands of obstinate men under them, in an incoherent chain of command, who are really loyal only to their militias.
Similarly, Sunnis, who have been underrepresented in the new Iraqi armed forces, now find themselves forming militias, sometimes with our tacit support. Sunnis recognize that the best guarantee they may have against Shiite militias and the Shiite-dominated government is to form their own armed bands. We arm them to aid in our fight against Al Qaeda.
However, while creating proxies is essential in winning a counterinsurgency, it requires that the proxies are loyal to the center that we claim to support. Armed Sunni tribes have indeed become effective surrogates, but the enduring question is where their loyalties would lie in our absence. The Iraqi government finds itself working at cross purposes with us on this issue because it is justifiably fearful that Sunni militias will turn on it should the Americans leave.
In short, we operate in a bewildering context of determined enemies and questionable allies, one where the balance of forces on the ground remains entirely unclear. (In the course of writing this article, this fact became all too clear: one of us, Staff Sergeant Murphy, an Army Ranger and reconnaissance team leader, was shot in the head during a “time-sensitive target acquisition mission” on Aug. 12; he is expected to survive and is being flown to a military hospital in the United States.) While we have the will and the resources to fight in this context, we are effectively hamstrung because realities on the ground require measures we will always refuse — namely, the widespread use of lethal and brutal force.
Page 2 of 2)
Given the situation, it is important not to assess security from an American-centered perspective. The ability of, say, American observers to safely walk down the streets of formerly violent towns is not a resounding indicator of security. What matters is the experience of the local citizenry and the future of our counterinsurgency. When we take this view, we see that a vast majority of Iraqis feel increasingly insecure and view us as an occupation force that has failed to produce normalcy after four years and is increasingly unlikely to do so as we continue to arm each warring side.

Related
2 G.I.’s, Skeptical but Loyal, Die in a Truck Crash in Iraq (Sept. 13)
Coupling our military strategy to an insistence that the Iraqis meet political benchmarks for reconciliation is also unhelpful. The morass in the government has fueled impatience and confusion while providing no semblance of security to average Iraqis. Leaders are far from arriving at a lasting political settlement. This should not be surprising, since a lasting political solution will not be possible while the military situation remains in constant flux.
The Iraqi government is run by the main coalition partners of the Shiite-dominated United Iraqi Alliance, with Kurds as minority members. The Shiite clerical establishment formed the alliance to make sure its people did not succumb to the same mistake as in 1920: rebelling against the occupying Western force (then the British) and losing what they believed was their inherent right to rule Iraq as the majority. The qualified and reluctant welcome we received from the Shiites since the invasion has to be seen in that historical context. They saw in us something useful for the moment.
Now that moment is passing, as the Shiites have achieved what they believe is rightfully theirs. Their next task is to figure out how best to consolidate the gains, because reconciliation without consolidation risks losing it all. Washington’s insistence that the Iraqis correct the three gravest mistakes we made — de-Baathification, the dismantling of the Iraqi Army and the creation of a loose federalist system of government — places us at cross purposes with the government we have committed to support.
Political reconciliation in Iraq will occur, but not at our insistence or in ways that meet our benchmarks. It will happen on Iraqi terms when the reality on the battlefield is congruent with that in the political sphere. There will be no magnanimous solutions that please every party the way we expect, and there will be winners and losers. The choice we have left is to decide which side we will take. Trying to please every party in the conflict — as we do now — will only ensure we are hated by all in the long run.
At the same time, the most important front in the counterinsurgency, improving basic social and economic conditions, is the one on which we have failed most miserably. Two million Iraqis are in refugee camps in bordering countries. Close to two million more are internally displaced and now fill many urban slums. Cities lack regular electricity, telephone services and sanitation. “Lucky” Iraqis live in gated communities barricaded with concrete blast walls that provide them with a sense of communal claustrophobia rather than any sense of security we would consider normal.
In a lawless environment where men with guns rule the streets, engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act. Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence. When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages. As an Iraqi man told us a few days ago with deep resignation, “We need security, not free food.”
In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal.
Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities.
We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through.

Gravel was right about the Iran vote.

Russert was way out of line with a (Christian) religious test for political office.  Totally and unquestionably unconstitutional.

This comment is directed to Chris Mathews and Tim Russert. I felt your questioning of Hillary Clinton was shameful and fully intended to embarrass. These debates are about politics, intelligence, stature, ideas and goals. Many of Tim's questions to all the candidates were inapproriate. I felt we couldn,t get a real take on any of their ideas. The process was
confusing and to scattered to obtain thorough ideas.
Mrs. Clinton was addressed fewer times than the other candiddates and with stupid questions. Chris Mathews showed his true sexist colors with his tirad against Mrs. Clinton. I found it unbelievable in todays world that we still have such small minded people and a reporter who would present such a biased platform. I was ashamed of both smug men. It is apparent that these men are living in the dark ages.

Hillary handled the criticism like a head of state.  Hmm, has a nice ring.

How about a Clinton-Biden ticket? AND, how intolerant can this nation be that we can't accept a strong female leader? Israel, England, India, etc.... have excelled with a female at the helm. We seem to want to share our 'freedom' value with Iraq but can't handle an opinion if it differs from our own and heaven forbid it come from the mouth of a woman ! !

Hillary can not answer a simple question, it's difficult to get a bead on this candidate because she's so evasive. She must be an attorney.

If anyone really believes that the top-tier candidates are going to do anything to change America they're sadly mistaken. They all say what they think the people want to hear, except for Barack Obama on ocassion. Tom Tancredo is a level-headed, down-to-earth candidate that truly IS wanting to change America for the better. He believes in the American people and continues to fight for ALL Americans, not just certain groups at the time it's right for his campaign. It's just too bad that the media continues to show its bias against him. He's a man of truth and dignity and a wonderful role model for America.

Chris Matthews seems to have lost all objectivity when it comes to Hillary Clinton. He constantly slams her in and underhanded kind of way and even recently discredited herd for her laugh. I used to love to watch Chris, but I no longer find him a fair or credible commentator or pundit.

chris Matthews was disgraceful  last nite. His comments were low and demeaning. if he does not like Hilary tell him not to vote for her. Our family will never tune him in again.

chris Matthews was disgraceful  last nite. His comments were low and demeaning. if he does not like Hilary tell him not to vote for her. Our family will never tune him in again.

I don't believe Hillary Clinton is a hawk, she is just being logical. I know she will see that the troops are home right away and will leave enough to protect our people and interests. What is hard for me to understand is the continued attackes by Chris  Matthews? are you sure he shouldn't be working for Fox

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