I was still not sure who to vote for, after the debate though, my vote goes to Obama. We need someone who is right on day one!

This really wasn't close.  She did well during the first half -- mainly because CNN asked her all of the questions and let her go on, and on, and on.  But then came Iraq -- and even all of Hillary's verbal diarrhea could not get her out of the mess she created for herself  by voting for the war.  Obama won fair and square in a cordial debate on the issues.

"It's interesting that neither candidate is feeling the pressure of losing on Feb. 5"... You get that feeling because the Hillary campaign is FINALLY getting the message and they need to PRETEND they're non-contentious. That "feeling" is derived from the fact Hillary's campaign realizes that the general public comprehends they've divisively polarized the party as a means to serve the Bill/Hillary ticket. Not the nation's ticket, but CLINTON's ticket! <p>She's cheesy nice and "you get the feeling" there is no pressure. She's a good actress. She's playing "Obama" nice.<p> Edward's camp is moving towards Obama and Hillary's desperately trying to emulate Obama. Guess what? It's too late. SURPRISE! we want UNIFICATION - he said CHANGE, but in fact, we want UNIFICATION. Hill, you BLEW IT! We're sick and tired of polarization.

Wow!! You guys are right on target!!! Im an independent that now will vote for Borack Obama. I did not like the answer Hillary gave in regards to her record about the Iraq war it almost felt she was cought off of guard, and did not know what to say. I belive the she has lost olot of votes on this issue. Thats the only thing that stands out the issue about Iraq.

I would be very concerned about the decisions that Obama would make. He admitted that he won't be right on every issue.  He said it. "Hindsite" is 20/20.  

Hillary would lead to make health care an important issue.  She would lead with the issues of the economy. Hillary would lead to bring the troops home - in a safe way.  Hillary would begin to
mend the failing Economy.

Hillary definitely won the debate.  She uas focused as she explained the issues were clear. Obama would be another "smug" male who thinks that he knows it all.  We saw a glimpse of this - when Obama "snubed" Hillary at the State of the Union.
 

When HRC speaks on and on, I feel like "make a point or shut up"
She's full of empty sound bites.
And the feminists who supports her becoz of her gender? please, HRC have no respect for herself or black women, she associates herself with Bob Johnson the founder of BET who sold a fortune sexually exploitations of young black women. How's that for a feminist to support?
Besides, what kind of woman stays with a man who cheated on her, say... that many times, publicly?

I too, a former edwards supporter, I  thought that they both had their strong points. But once Hillary started straggling on Iraq, I began to see why there is a significant majority of Americans who don't trust the Clinton family. I also think that mandating health insurance is bad policy.  I'm pretty sure Obama has my vote because of his intellect, honesty, character and his ability to connect with people like me. I think his fresh prospective is a must for change in this country.

As president Barack will exhibit better judgement than Billary.

I supported Bill Clinton twice. Hillary Clinton is no doubt qualified to be President. However, there is no debating the fact that Hillary is a polarizing figure. We don't need her to "clean up the mess" of another Bush presidency (sounds like a divider not a uniter). We need a President who is not divisive!! (which hillary Clinton is). Hillary Clinton is not the person to heal the wounds of the last 8 years of George Bush or the last four years of Clinton I....it is time for REAL change. Vote Obama!

I supported Bill Clinton twice. Hillary Clinton is no doubt qualified to be President. However, there is no debating the fact that Hillary is a polarizing figure. We don't need her to "clean up the mess" of another Bush presidency (sounds like a divider not a uniter). We need a President who is not divisive!! (which hillary Clinton is). Hillary Clinton is not the person to heal the wounds of the last 8 years of George Bush or the last four years of Clinton I....it is time for REAL change. Vote Obama!

Paging Mr. Deir, Paging Mr. R. Dier. Please join your party in January 31st. The Iraq "fairy tale" argument has been thoroughly discredited and I'm pretty sure it cost your candidate plenty already. You're doing her no favors using last week's talking points.

For anyone else like Mr. Dier, who clearly missed the unwinding of the "fairy tale" in late January, Obama took a clear, public stand against the Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq. In a follow-up interview in 2002, he explicitly describes his concern about sectarian strife and civil war in Iraq and resurgence of al qaida in Afghanistan. This is all on YouTube. http://youtube.com/watch?v=EhpKmQCCwB8

His "agreeing with George Bush" was simply the acknowlegement that there weren't a lot of other options at that point, and his "funding the war" was as simple as making sure the troops got their paychecks and supplies. I think that's a no-brainer, even Hillary got THAT one right.

Orphaned Edwards supporter here!  One of the things that first attracted me to Edwards was his frank willingness to admit that he was wrong when he voted to authorize the war.  It takes a strong and honest person to own up to a mistake.

In contrast, Hillary Clinton has never owned up over the same mistake.  This gives rise to the inference that she is an opportunist who blows with the wind.  In 2002, it was politically unpopular to oppose the war, so she went along with Bush.  As the war turned sour, she spent a couple of years attacking Bush from the right on Iraq, claiming he was prosecuting the war badly.  When the majority of the people turned definitely against the war, she ran over to the other side with vague promises about how she wants to get out.  But she has never been honest about the issue.

In a few days, I will make my decision between Obama and Clinton.  The Iraq issue will be an important part of the decision for me.  I'd like to hear some honest self-criticism from Clinton on this.

This debate was hard to "score" for one reason...Both Obama and Clinton did remarkably well. I'm sure Clinton supporters can think of some debates that they watched and made a cringe face...same with Obama supporters (good example would be the Debate where Hillary "flip-flopped" on immegration...and the following debate where Obama looked like he was clueless.) The remainder of the debates the "winner" wins b/c the other guy blow it kind of...either by looking too aggressive or personal...or looking like they can't just spit it out.
Tonight, I think off the record both Clinton and Obama suppoters would admit that their "opponent" did very well...
I don't know if I would get behind a "Obama Victory"...He opened well, he looked good on the race v. republican issue and on health care (but so did she on healthcare.)
She looked good on the economy, very good when Blitzer made that "naive" reference, good on healthcare...ok on Iraq (the truth is, whether you agree with her vote or not...you have to admit she did explain it pretty well, its just a tough stance to take when 6/10 voters think it was a mistake...)

PS...those who keep saying "it was easy to say you were against it from the start" forget to mention that the speech he gave in front of a national press conference was BEFORE the invasion...Yes, he called a national press conference and said he thought it was the wrong war at the wrong time...most of you have heard it so I won't go into depth. If Clinton supporters were being honest they would tell you they know she voted for it b/c at the time she didn't want to get painted as a dove (she is a woman, and at the time im sure she felt that was her biggest liability. (remember Obama supporters, it wasn't 2008 when she casted the vote...it was 2002, 1 year after 9/11, and right after Afghanistan 'looked' as though it got its ass kicked in like 2 weeks...)

I don't knock her for her vote per se...I do wish she wouldn't play into republican's hands so much though...I mean, she keeps touting this National security Arguement...but honestly, if McCain is the Nominee either her or Obama is going to have a tough time making the "I'm the better commander and chief" argument, so on that point I do agree with Obama.

Democrats should honestly step back and look at the oppurtunity they have, and unite behind one of these canidates at the end b/c if they don't...McCain will win...you can paint him a GOP devil on the blogs if you want but to beat him you need Obama's youth and Independants, and you also need Clintons ability to turn out Women. Thats a fact.

Unlike Edwards, Hillary simply cannot admit she made a mistake.  Sounds familiar - ever hear GW Bush admit a mistake?  They are both creepy as hell if you ask me.  Go Obama.

My guess is that Obama would have voted the same way on Iraq as he did on Kyl-Liebarman (Iran) where he voted absent.

Although the largest laugh came from Hillary Clinton  . . . "it will take a Clinton to clean up the Bush White House" . . . She has never answered the questions sufficiently.  Will a co-presidency work in 2009?

Let us all remember folks, vote on the issues at hand. Which war are we to fight? The war in Iraq or the Healthcare war we have back home? I say we just deplete them both. You have cancer?? You're missing your arm because of the war? Aww, have you some home remedies? And yes, I do believe Obama bagged this one tonight... He just seems to be an honorable trustworthy fellow from Honolulu, Hawaii.

First of all these joint press conferences are not debates.  These conferences are a great way to compare candidates' poise, intelligence, position on issues, and their ability to communicate in clear concise language.  Hillary demonstrated her qualities very well.  Then comes their past.  What have the candidates done to demonstrate that they have worked to fulfill the ideals that they will bring to the office of the president.  Obama's accomplishment are thin, but Hillary shines. It's easy not to make mistakes when one does not get involved.  I will quote u-s-history.com to tell you her accomplishment before she became First Lady:

After entering Yale Law School in 1969, Rodham served on the board of editors of the Yale Review of Law and Social Action and provided legal advice for underprivileged and abused children at Yale-New Haven Hospital. She also interned with children’s advocate Marian Wright Edelman, received a grant to work at the Children’s Defense Fund in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in 1970; and worked for Senator Walter Mondale’s subcommittee on migrant workers during the summer of 1971. During her second year in law school, Rodham volunteered at the Yale Child Study Center, where she studied new research on early childhood brain development. She also worked at the city legal services providing free assistance to poor residents.

After graduating from Yale in 1973, Rodham began a year of post-graduate study on children and medicine at the Yale Child Study Center, after having written her widely acknowledged thesis on children’s rights. She also became a staff attorney for the Children’s Defense Fund and was recruited to serve on the presidential impeachment inquiry staff for the House of Representative’s Judiciary Committee, investigating the Watergate Scandal. Rodham moved to Fayetteville, Arkansas, after President Richard M. Nixon resigned in August 1974. She joined boyfriend and colleague Bill on the University of Arkansas Law School faculty.

During Rodham Clinton’s 12 years as first lady of Arkansas, she continued to pursue children and family issues. She chaired the Arkansas Education Standards Committee to improve the testing standards of new teachers, founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, and introduced Arkansas Home Instruction for Preschool Youth, a program that trained parents of preschool children in preparedness and literacy. The first lady also served on the Arkansas Children’s Hospital Legal Services board, Children’s Defense Fund board, while continuing to work for the Rose Law Firm. She was named one of the 100 most influential attorneys in America by the National Law Journal in 1988 and 1991. She was also named Arkansas Woman of the Year in 1983 and Arkansas Mother of the Year in 1984.

how could anyone be a vice president to Hillary with Bill in the picture

talk about being odd man out--
If Hillary is the nominee - whoever takes the VP job will be one very weak and/or ambitious pol -- because they will never find or have a "voice" in the Clinton/Clinton admin

Maybe there are those who think that's good

And then there are those who recall the 22nd amendment and that we left the monarchy in 1776

It is now essential that our next President be able to command the 4C's of American political leadership to meet our national security interests both militarily and economically.
These 4C's being; commitment, courage, confidence & candor.
On the debate over the war in Iraq Senator Obama commanded all four of these while Senator Clinton commanded none.
Not only on the question of our national security, but on who can we believe will act at all times in our nations best interests Senator Obama truly is ready to command, not demand.

Sen. Clinton was on her best behavior tonight; but she was still barely likeable.  Barack Obama is inspiring, and showed a strong enough command of the issues.  He introduced himself well to California and the rest of the Super Tuesday electorates.  Hillary Clinton just reminded us that the Clintons are sometimes tolerable, but you expect the wheels to fall off any minute.

Obama be da man yo.  Black man making his way in the world.  Get them greedy republacans out of my pocket.  Clinton's one of them.  Centrist bitches can suck it!

Chuck is right. (Especially for the undecided or "fence" voters)this election is about Obama, not Hillary. We know the Clintons (and, no you can't separate them). Obama has been the "unknown" figure. Clearly as people have gotten to know him, he has moved up in the polls everywhere (he's within 4% nationally now !) When people see (as many did tonight) that he is presidential and more than capable of doing the job, they will realize they can have an excellent president who also does not 1 bring the past scandals, 2) an uncontrollable spouse, 3)many enemies that will constantly pursue fights,and 4)an undemocratic dynasty to the White House. Showing that he can hold his own, coupled with the above points, makes Obama the necessary choice.

''I keep wondering, are undecided voters waiting to see if Obama can prove his mettle for the presidency? There's a theory that believes just that.''

Chuck, theories don't believe in themselves. People do. Or not.

Wow, the bias is just everywhere in here. No one can give props to the other candidate they don't support? It seemingly doesn't matter what the other person did, only just saying whatever you can to convince yourself that *your* candidate came out on top.

Here is how I saw it.

Obama gave a very pointed response on the war that was very strong. Other answers he did very well on. He was pretty well on target for most answers and did not dodge the questions.

Clinton was a master at her responses, which is not unexpected. She is very good at debating and showed it probably more tonight than she's done before.

As far as they way they carried themselves, Hillary does not seem genuine to me. Her smile seems fake, and her expressions almost shrill at times. Additionally, her responses almost seem like she's annoyed and a few times she seemed to dodge the questions.

Obama carries himself very well but spends a lot of time explaining things. He took up a lot of time early on talking about positions.

I thought both candidates did well but Obama seemed to tip the scale with his response on Iraq. He seemed to have a firm control of the question and he wasn't afraid to put Hillary on the defense. When it turned around, she didn't counter well enough and ultimately, that was the turn of the debate for me.

What annoyed me the most (as Chuck points out) was the celebs in the audience. The Democrats didn't need that. McCain and Romney will be sure to mention it next debate. Additionally, CNN was almost blatantly biased against Hillary. For example, at the end of that debate Obama gets this huge softball question about sex and violence from Hollywood and Hillary gets a question about Bill and his role in the White House? Come on. That is hurting our debate and hurting the political process. The Media should conduct itself better than that. There were other, less obvious instances of this (like letting Obama talk longer than he should) but I was really disappointed in CNN and Wolf (why does a monotone guy like this have a show?).

To Kim in Pasadena, thanks for posting the information about Sen. Obama's objection to going to war in Iraq. He absolutely knew he was putting his political career on the line by coming out against the war at that time. Doesn't anyone remember how difficult it was to do so in the climate that said if you were not for the war you were not patriotic.  I've also seen interview footage of him discussing in more detail why he thought it would be a mistake because of the complex make up of the population, insurgencies that would result, etc. His analysis was amazingly accurate. Sen. Clinton didn't even read the available intelligence reports.

I voted for Bill Clinton twice but believe it is time to move foward. Although the enconomy was better then, do we really want to revisit all the scandals, investigations (of both Clintons), impeachment, etc. Bill Clinton's poor personal judgment is at least partially responsible for the Congress turning republican and for putting Bush in office. Republicans will have a field day in a general election with all the Clinton baggage and they will go in droves to vote against Hillary.

That's not good for the democratic party or the country. I think we have more to choose from than Bushes and Clintons. And wouldn't it be nice to put some integrity back in the White House?

Obama brings people together and can take a solid stand - Drivers license, Iraq etc. Hillary is too polarizing and waves to where the wind is blowing - wants drivers license one week, and changes mind the next week. That was the difference in tonight's debate to me!

Obama will make the better president and Hillary the Vice. That's because Obama is more charismatic, does not waiver, lovable and inspiring. Hillary may make a good vice president as she can get the job done, but cannot take a tough stand on issues!

If Hillary admits she was wrong she gets crusified in the media. I don't want a president who believes he is "right on day one". I believe the our current president believes he is right. I want someone who knows how to act when things aren't going according to plan. Hillary didn't handle the Iraq question well but Obama wasn't consistent with his policies. He is against mandates in healthcare because it requires enforcement. How is he going to mandate children to be covered under his plan without enforcement? He never explained this because he can't.  What I saw was Obama getting a pass for his policy inconsistencies. You want someone with vision well it was Hillary sitting in front of congress taking a beating trying to reform healthcare more than 10 years ago. She didn't get it done in that political environment but she put her neck on the block. I don't want a motivational speaker re-energizing 60's themes. I want someone who knows how to drive policies through and get things done.

To everyone on this board, and I know most of you are younger like me (25). I understand why you like Hillary. Her husband has looked like a saint after what the Bush Administration has done. The economy was great under him and he seemed to be able to keep us out of enough trouble. So some more years of a Clinton would do us good right?

Maybe, maybe not. The point in this whole election is that we have a chance to see something historical happen. Not just by the fact a woman or african american becomes president, but because we will have someone who has the best chance of any other president to be actually truthful with us.

Now we have all heard Obama is uplifting and motivational when he speaks and Clinton supporters, you know as well as anyone else that he is. The key principle he stands for is bringing the government back to the people though. As far fetching as that sounds, and trust me I'm with you in believing a politician can be truly honest with us, isn't in conceivable that it could quite possibly happen?

I always have asked myself why a candidate doesn't just come out and look us in the eye and flat out tell us he (or she) will be upfront and honest with us? Well my friends, as John Mccain would say, we have met the person that has and will continue to do that in Barack Obama.

The debate tonight was for the most part a draw. I thought Hillary had a slight edge but only because she talked more. And the reason why I say and edge is because talking more can persuade those who haven't followed the race as closely as the rest of us makes it seem like that candidate is more in control.

I must go back to what I have said already my fellow Generation X-ers, we need to get this man into the oval office so he can be the president that changes our generation and the one that will be remembered as The Honest One.

We can only take so many generations of discontent for our government before we give up, let this moment prevent you from stopping the fight!

"stable equilibrium" _ thanks, Phy Pol, I wondered what term to call this untouchable bubble which Hillary Clinton appears to be in - and I agree that only she (as a woman) can benefit from this essentially "victim" position (and I agree that if the voting majority of women & nearly all Latino women go with this "sympathy vote" Hillary will likely get nominated - frankly I'm not so sure about elected).  Rather strange, don't you think, to have the leader of the free world elected by young & older "feminists" based more on emotion than logic & reason?  I'm a baby boomer woman & I have a much longer memory of the nastiness of the Clinton WH, and I can't support Clinton, but I wholly agree with this assessment of the campaign.  Younger & older women seem to have totally fallen for Hillary's gender thing, and there's not a darned thing Obama can do about it.  He has much more character, strength & appeal across the board - and is clearly more inspirational.  It will be incredibly interesting to see if either of them will agree to be the running mate.  I LOVED "rmh"s comments comparing Hillary to the wedding guest (or airplane passenger) you never want to sit next to -- I guess that's why I really never enjoy listening to her.  She says all the right things, but you never sense that she really believes those things from her core - that's why she takes so long to make a point b/c she does it superficially - from her head, not from her heart.  I don't think she has a firm internal compass, actually, I think she's reactive to what she expects from those around her.  BTW, I totally agree with Chuck Todd - the Republicans are going to BLAST the DEms with having this debate in Hollywood - and people in Kansas, Nebraska, Montana, Alabama, Missouri, aren't really going to like that at all.  Especially with the economy the way it is . . . I read a story of how former tennis phenom Andrea Jager sold an $18,000 watch to buy presents for sick kids when she was 20 - yes, Brad & Angelina give lots to charities, but really are the Dems supposed to be the party for the underdogs in the USA?
Kim in Pasadena - thanks for reiterating Barack's prediction as to what would happen following an invasion of Iraq - I feel certain that Colin Powell thought the same thing; that's why (among other reasons) he left.  That single decision was the worst possible choice following 9/11 - made us the bully of the world, enhanced al Qaeda's recruitment, and is bankrupting our government & economy (and will continue to do so for years).  Bin Laden was hoping to drag us into Afghanistan; he could never have fathomed the greater success of having us bogged down in Iraq too (just as he could not have fathomed that the WTC towers would both actually come down).  Obama knew that we were squandering ALL of the good will which we had in the World after 9/11.

Chuck Todd should take Chris Matthew and start an Obama Groupies Club.

And the answer is NO. Hillary won the debate. Her answer to the illegal immigrant is FAIR to all involved including white southerners and blacks. Unlike Obama who stuttered through it all.

Iraq is complex and Obama cant handle it. That's why he was AWOL when the vote had to be done

the debate was won by Hillary and although Wolf, Obama, Ariannia, Josh, Rachel and Keith would like to pigeon hole Hillary into an apology for her vote, she is standing firm...if you took the time to go back and see what she said on the floor of the Senate you would see that she did not agree to a pre-emptive war and she wanted the weapon inspectors back in...but the reason the debate did not tip to Obama on Iraq is because that was then and this is now...and Hillary is the one that went to the Pentagon to demand to know what their exit strategy is...they have none... and Hillary is the one who is sponsoring legislation to stop George Bush from further entangling us in his Iraq war after he leaves office and Hillary was gracious enough to ask Barak to co-sponsor the legislation with her...Hillary is the one who is being proactive and doing something meaningful about getting us out and stopping Bush and as usual, Obama is just talking about it as he is prone to do...and talk and talk and talk...

besides the Iraq issue, the american people are more concerned these days about the economy, their jobs, and keeping their homes...so nice try...but Hillary won the debate and she has the most vision and best plans to get the USA back on the right track

To Brandon the graduate at UofL. If Hillary wins, there will be no other vice-president, as her Bill will be the real P. His history of subjugating women, including her, will just repeat itself...

M.O.K.

Hillary's response that president is a "lonely" office she alone would fill was empty reply to the dynasty question.  And throughout debate she ate sugar out of her own hand and the hand of Senator Obama until she  soured on Iraq question.  Obama?  Serious and presidential and gentlemanly, answering the questions pointedly except one.  He did not say he could accommodate the desires of voters for any kind of ticket with Hillary, but he was gentlemanly in reply.  As for Hillary's "It takes a Clinton to clean up after Bush" tired line?  Really?  Turn the page.  Out with "W" and them!  Hillary lost a lot of her "inevitable" candidacy enter Barack Obama and he needs her not, if he wins nomination against odds!  

Hillary Clnton is a follower, not a leader. She followed the crowd who voted to invade Iraq. She followed the crowd who argued for exceptions for torture, then followed them again when the politics of the moment changed. And now she has followed her husband's lead by running for US president just as he did. But if this is Hollywood, then she has been badly miscast. She'd probably make a good vice-president, as Obama himself astutely observed, but would be a relatively indecisive Commander-in-Chief. Bill naturally knows it, which is why he continually has to be shore up her credibility by being a crutch to her. She looks good on TV, and I feel sorry for her because she's a nice enough lady, as again Obama himself noted, but those qualities on their own aren't the stuff of presidents. On the other hand, Obama is a leader in the classic mold, and that's evidently what the the more astute among the Kennedys have seen in him as well.  

Hillary Clinton is a follower, not a leader. She followed the crowd who voted to invade Iraq. She followed the crowd who argued for exceptions for torture, then followed them again when the politics of the moment changed. And now she has followed her husband's lead by running for US president just as he did. But if this is Hollywood, then she has been badly miscast. She'd probably make a good vice-president, as Obama himself astutely observed, but would be a relatively indecisive Commander-in-Chief. Bill naturally knows it, which is why he continually has to shore up her credibility by being a crutch to her by her side. She looks good on TV, and I feel sorry for her because she's a nice enough lady as again Obama himself noted, but those qualities on their own aren't the stuff of presidents. On the other hand, Obama is a leader in the classic mold, and that's evidently what the the more astute among the Kennedys have seen in him as well.  

Clinton talks till your eyes glaze over - much like how Gore lost to bush in 2000. Obama is the real deal and America is waking up. Will enough people wake up in time?

Ring your neighbors doorbell bell people, ring their phones - it's time to change course. Unplug from fear and doubt and talking heads - The only thing you'll give up is the safety of knowing your country is going to shit.

One day you will look back and realize that Barack Obama became President of the United States because of the simple act of putting his hand on the back of Hillary's chair.

As a 30 year old black male Independent... Obama finally won me over tonight.

My reservation had always been his ability or inability to stand against a Republican in a general election. To me he more than proved that tonight.


He made some very clear distinctions, one of those being his ability to CREDIBLY debate a Republican on the war... which we KNOW will be a huge debate in the general election. Im much more comfortable with a candidate that can say "I opposed the war" rather than one who has to say "I voted for it... but I changed my mind". The republicans will EAT THAT ALIVE. Furthermore she STILL refuses to say that the war vote was a mistake... yet another opening for Republicans to gain ground.

Another point he made was that although she has more "experience" that experience obviously has not given her superior judgment. The line about not only being ready to lead on day one but being RIGHT on day one... was masterful.

He can count on my vote.

In the debate, Obama said words to the effect: "We need a President who gets it right on day one"

I wonder if he thinks that JFK got the "Bay of Pigs" right??  

Hi my name is juan vargas,and I am the assistant union organizer for the house keeper hospital union local (509) we are 16,000,00 strong, and after coming from tonights debate we're endorsing(barack obama) Latino's for OBAMA!

This network has pratically endorsed Obama.  Everyone I talk to is disguisted with the media for pushing a candidate down our throats.  People are not as stupid as you think.  

Clearly Hillary won the debate.  She will be the Democratic nominee.  She gives details.  She is best qualified to be President. Obama is touting his ILLINOIS STATE SENATE experience as his qualifications to run the world.  That is truly scary.    

Well put Chuck.  Her answer on Iraq had more twists than an Agatha Christie novel.

She showed poor judgment in authorizing this war.  And I think if she play the naive card, it further enhances her poor judgment, not only on this issue but on her handling of Health Care, coming out and blaming a vast right wing conspiracy prior to the Monica mess, etc.

Obama remains Obama...the same during all the debates...the same during all the primaries...consistent...steady hand...presidential.
Hillary changes tunes to whatever the audience is whistling. Hillary motto seems to be... I will do or say or become whatever it takes to win.  She cares more about her personal power than the power of the people. Obama keeps talking about power to the people. Clinton followers are truly running over the cliff possessed by the same evil that "is" Hillary Clinton. She made the best point....too many years of Bushes followed by too many years of Clintons. It's time for a real change. If Hillary becomes president the immigration issue might be self balancing as thousands of US citizens leave the country.... I know that I will be one of them. I cannot be under a government blatantly headed by Satan.

I am a receptionist with a BA in English, not political science, and even I knew the vote was to authorize the war. I marched against the invasion before it began, how could Hillary have trusted Bush? I didn't. In my world, Obama's position is exactly where most people have always been. It was always evident to half of America the invasion was an ill conceived risk.

I submit that Clinton explains her vote for the Iraq War on the delusion that the President would, having this blank check to go to war, seek further diplomacy before starting the war.  

Many in the Senate thought such wishful thinking was in fact delusional and sought to have an amendment that would make sure the president tried diplomacy one more time.  Why was Clinton opposed to the Levin amendment if she felt that was not voting for the “rush to war”  She claims Levin would have subordinated the power of the President to the U.N.  That’s just wrong and deceptive.

In the Senate she said:

“Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.”

She abdicated the responsibility to Bush.  There is a reason the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war and here is where she failed in that responsibility the founders instilled in her and others.

If you want an example of her experience and so called leadership failing to act with the wisdom and judgment she was entrusted with as a senator this is it.  “Open and shut” as she put it.

While I am no Kennedy fan, I am reassured by his sense of what his job was on this issue:
“In this situation, it would be wrong for Congress to act now to authorize the President to go to war before the steps the President has outlined are exhausted.  The most solemn responsibility any Congress has is the responsibility given the Congress by the Constitution to declare war. We would violate that responsibility if we delegate that responsibility to the President in advance before the President himself has decided the time has come for war. –Ted Kennedy

Compare Kennedy’s experience and knowledge about senatorial responsibility to Clinton’s willingness to delegate that responsibility to Bush.

So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President- Clinton

Constitutionally Mr. Kennedy had it right didn’t he?

Later Votes on Funding are a Red Herring

Votes to fund the war after that are not the issue as nearly every patriotic Senator is reluctant to remove funding for troops already in the field and produce an unstable situation without a commensurate plan from the Commander in Chief to execute in the face of cut funds.  It’s irresponsible do cut funding for an army dying in the field.  Put another way, voting for arson is not the same as voting for the equipment and firefighters to put out the fire caused by the vote for arson.  

On Levin

Hillary claims that the Levin amendment would have given the U.N. authority to handcuff (“subordinate” in the debate) the President.  That is: it would somehow surrender sovereignty to the U.N.  That is clearly an excuse.  But it’s also a lie..

As another senator (chaffee) who supported the Levin amendment put it,

The Levin Amendment “affirmed that Congress would stand at the ready to reconsider the use of force if, in the judgment of the president, a United Nations resolution was not “promptly adopted” or enforced. Ceding no rights or sovereignty to an international body, the amendment explicitly avowed America’s right to defend itself if threatened.”

While I understand why Hillary voted for the war in the post 9/11 fervor, she can’t get me to believe that it was for the reasons she said.  Else she would have voted for Levin.  I also understand why she doesn’t want to admit a mistake on the biggest issue she voted on.

But there is the rub.  She chooses instead to try and deceive me.  Therefore she will not get my vote.  I really don’t want another President lying to me for political purposes.  If she told the truth I’d vote for her, at least in the general.  But as it stands she is no better than any other liar on this issue.

Yes it did tip to him in my opinion.  Anyone who voted for that either knew what was going to happen or with her argument was naive.  Either way I do not want that person in the white house.  Can we please have a new name @ 1600 Pennsylvania Ave???

I find it very interesting that not many are talking about the immigration exchange. Am I crazy, or did Mrs. Clinton agree with the questioner that illegal immigrants are a major cause of poverty among African-Americans? More race-baiting?

Reading all these Obama messages is really quite frightening - before Oprah who even heard of him - he was a junior senator from Illinois - do we really think this country is ready for a black/muslim/Christian? President named Obama who has two or three whole years of experience- Of course as I ask this I realize that many of the folks on this site probably voted for Bush twice - sometimes it amazes me how short sighted the American people can be even when the truth is looking right at them.  Don't want change so bad that you throw the baby out with the bath water - we have serious problems that need serious solutions not feel good rhetoric!

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