Clinton vs. Obama

Edmund — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:24:56 GMT

I just don't understand how pandering to less than 1% (cuban and jewish vote) of the population takes priority over things like.. i don't know.. real issues? It is not like either candidate has differing views, they both support Israel to the end and both hate castro. I want a third party candidate.

Clinton vs. Obama

MK,MO — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:28:55 GMT

something that should be made clear to the american voter is the fact that hillary clinton accepts campaign contributions from lobbyist, edwards and obama do not, that should send up a rather large red flag to anyone who thinks hillary is looking out for the american citizen, make no mistake hillary is a corporate owned entity and should not be the next president of the u.s.a. , you won't be seeing this imfo plastered all over the front pages of the corporate run media, so pass it on

Clinton vs. Obama

ALH — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:51:18 GMT

I agree with the Obama stance that 'not talking' to the world leaders with whom we disagree isn't accomplishing anything.
On an individual, personal basis, when someone does something wrong, do we just 'clam up and walk away' and expect that to be a punishment? Is lack of communication somehow miraculously supposed to achieve the change we wish to see in the world?
The Washington stance of promoting 'silence to the opposition' is a cold-war leftover that needs to be recognized as the childish approach that is. I'm glad at least one of our candidates sees that.

Clinton vs. Obama

David, Chattanooga, Tn — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:52:43 GMT

As many real voters known, Neither Clinton or Obama can win in 08. The candidate with the only chance for the dems in 08?
JOHN EDWARDS!!!!!

Clinton vs. Obama

Yiannis, Baltimore, MD — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:55:35 GMT

Clinton is trying to define Obama. It's that simple. Like Rove they'll find his presumed weakness and try and hammer it away forever.

Obama should have come out calling her calculating HER biggest weakness. HAMMER that away Barack.

Trying to lump her with Bush won't work. One weakness. HAMMER IT AWAY FOR MONTHS.

This is what politics is about. Define your opponent.

Clinton vs. Obama

Asad — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:57:27 GMT

Wow, David from Chattanooga... I didn't know that I was a fake voter... thanks for letting me know.

Clinton vs. Obama

Bunny, Winston-Salem, NC — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:06:31 GMT

Definitions:
Obama: Nice guy but lacks substance
Hillary: Not nice and lacks substance

Clinton vs. Obama

Joe, Wilmington, DE — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:10:09 GMT

AL Gore is the only hope we have to move forward our country in the right direction. AL is the person with all the right ingredients to be the President he is been an executive and a decision maker. On the other hand Clinton and Obama both are in experience as an executive/decision maker. If either one of them is elected as a President he/she will be a puppet President. Same as the current situation where Cheney is the decision maker and Bush just sign on the orders

Clinton vs. Obama

jerry/corpus christi texas — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:21:26 GMT

AL Gore is in hiding. Two weeks ago, his daughter got married. At the dinner, they had chilean sea bass flown in for the dinner. In his life earth book, he lectures to people about not eating anything that was flown great distances. Since the sea bass only are found in between Chile and Antarctica, that thing flew over 8000 miles to be flopped down on his plate. Adding to the fact, it is about to be put on an endangered species does not do Al any favors. The environmentalist that championed his cause are hunting after him now. Al Gore needs to pay about $10,000 in carbon taxes (payable to the company he half owns, so it will cost him only $5000). You notice he has not been all over the papers lately. He was pretty much shredded for all the people that had to destroy the earth (allegedly) to get to his concerts all over the world. Flying around in his private Jet and driving his gas guzzling cars and he has the absolute gall to lecture us about how WE are destroying the earth when the proof is not there. Al, please take care of your druggie son, get into rehab, drop about 20 pounds and go away.

Clinton vs. Obama

Yiannis, Baltimore, MD — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:22:40 GMT

Al Gore, hmm, nice guy, a free thinker.

Won't run and he is a bad candidate. He lost to W and didn't even win his home state.

Clinton vs. Obama

Lyn, Silver Spring, MD — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:26:49 GMT

I believe the root of all of this is based on two things.

1) In the debate Hillary was upset (pissed)when Obama called her out on her new "Pentagon Letter" mantr. So she wanted to hit back hard and felt that, that was an opportunity to do just that...which by the way was a minor difference in phrasing. Her actions were no different than Romney implying Obama would give condoms to 5th graders, the "gottcha" politics and of course the media loves it.

2) They wanted to and did change the discussion from the rest of the debate and that she was not crowned the winner. They knew she wouldn't be so the spin was on and of course its the kind of thing the MSM loves.

There is a bigger picture that wasn't covered and that is "Why" the over the top reaction by the "front runner". First her campaign made sure everyone knew she wasn't attacking him (according to First Read )then BAM she goes on the attack on the radio. Did she not get the memo? Bill had to be shaking his head screaming NO, NO, NO. Behind the much crafted new persona of a nicer gentler Hillary there is the woman that most people refer to who have known or worked with her as a B----, with a quick temper. This is the woman who crafted the strategy to go after Bill's girl friends.

That Hillary reared its head yesterday. She couldn't help herself. Rookie mistake for such a polished politician. She gave Obama the perfect "slap down" back at her. " Naive and irresponsible is authorizing a war without an exit plan" The Obama team had to be smiling and beside themselves when she opened that door. Think about it, he rarely responds personally to "gottcha" stuff.

I predict when he starts to close the gap more of that "well documented" Hillary anger will be revealed(again, I don't think she can help herself, probably why she had a handler with her on a radio Q&A, to help keep her out of hot water), and watch those negatives rise.

Good work Obama team you 'HIT' that "SOFT" spot.

Clinton vs. Obama

scott — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:32:28 GMT

I'm confused as to why this little spat could hurt Obama. It wouldn't change my mind. I'm happy someone (Obama) is finally standing up to Clinton because Lord knows journalists won't.

Clinton vs. Obama

Charles Kushner — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:48:17 GMT

I'm not happy with Mrs. Clinton over her remarks about Obama's rational thought of talking to those we are at odds with. I'd much rather share words with an advisary than bullets and bombs any day of the week. War rhetoric doesn't impress me, having the courage and brilliance to lead an America that doesn't drop bombs at the first sign of trouble does. Obama is the obvious choice for someone who wants to be proud of their country again.

Clinton vs. Obama

Michael K — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 15:06:32 GMT

Obama should have come out calling her calculating HER biggest weakness. HAMMER that away Barack.

Trying to lump her with Bush won't work. One weakness. HAMMER IT AWAY FOR MONTHS.

Why not lump her with Bush? In the debate, she basically said that she wouldn't sit down with rogue nations for talks. Hasn't that been Bush's "foreign policy" plan since 9-11? Hell, she voted to authorize his war.

Lump her with Bush and he wins. It's that easy. There are way too many similarities for it not to work.

Clinton vs. Obama

AppleJacque, Columbus, Ohio — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 15:07:11 GMT

If anything, the spat is good for Barack and makes Hillary look like the corporate mud-raker that she is. If she hits like that too hard too soon, it would make Barack look even better,....TrussWhutIsay.

Yes, there is gonna be talk about Al Gore on these boards, but that's all it is,...just talk. He has a plan for himself to spring into action in the long run. He likes it when the American public talks about him, wondering what his next move is gonna be. I for one will not put his name in conversation.

(DARN,...I just did,...)

John Edwards? I forsee him being in whoever wins the Dem nominee cabinet in some form or fashion, TrussWhutIsay.

Clinton vs. Obama

Michael K — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 15:12:32 GMT

Ok, now I am pissed. When will the media pull it's collective heads out of Hillary Clinton's crotch? This is not going to hurt Obama. It is the opposite. If 65% of the nation believes that Dubya's an idiot (right on pace to knock Nixon out of the record books on that front) for how he has handled this country, clearly we all believe a new direction is needed. Guess what Obama's answer to that question that started this whole mess was--a new direction for American diplomacy. Hillary Clinton's answer was the same rhetorical crap that has us all wearing targets on our backs today.

All media outlets, including NBC and MSNBC need to wake up to this fact. Just because her last name is Clinton, she doesn't walk on water.

Clinton vs. Obama

HMT — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 15:18:10 GMT

why aren't the dems talking about the insults being hurled around in the republican party?Newt says all the guys running in the republican party are pygmies.Rudy insulting Romney and Romney flip-flopping to answer Rudy,Fred,etc.Geesh you are missing all the fun.

Clinton vs. Obama

Paul Mandigo — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 15:30:22 GMT

[Al Gore, hmm, nice guy, a free thinker. ]

Ummm, going more with untethered.

Clinton vs. Obama

Kristian O — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 15:34:37 GMT

This is the beginning of Hilary's free fall. When folks realize that she's just an extension of the Bush foreign policy, she'll start to come back to the crowd. She's going down.

Clinton vs. Obama

jerry/corpus christi texas — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 15:34:54 GMT

Hillary and rational thinking??? trying to figure that one out.

Clinton vs. Obama

Bruce, NV — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 15:35:48 GMT

Sorry, I despise Mrs. CLinton, but she's right, and the inexperienced lightweight is wrong. This might help him with the lefty fringe who think if we talk to Ahminedijad we can all sing kumbaya, but not with the vast middle in this country.

Clinton vs. Obama

OutWest, Canyon Country, CA — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 15:43:02 GMT

First the question was a good one, certainly better than most of the questions from MSM.
Both Obama and Clinton were correct in their answers and wrong too.
Obama's answer was too simplistic. Yes I will meet with them takes you to: meet them about what? After all our President doesn't "chat up" world leaders over burgers and beer.
Clinton's answer is was little calulated, but better. This may seem strange to a lot of you on this blog, but I want a shrewd, calulating President. I have had enough of a simplistic non-thinking President.
I have not jumped on any canidates band wagon, too early, but I will admit to being comfortable with the top 4 democrats along with the one "I'm not running" guy. As to the republicans, that is the best they can do?

Clinton vs. Obama

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 15:51:26 GMT

It just amazes me that some of the comments (and those making them) are so biased against Hillary. Again, like I said yesterday, when it is Obama or Edwards or someone else, we are obligated to read between the lines to what he meant or would have said if he had been given the opportunity. But when it is Hillary, we must nitpick every word that comes out of her mouth.

Unfortunately, in this case, the nitpickers lose. She NEVER said she would not engage in dialoge with hostile nations. But she understands that the first step in diplomacy is not one leader to another leader; it begins with lower level ambassadors laying the groundwork. Presidents meet face to face with our allies, with whom all the groundwork has been laid. On the other hand, Bush disapproves of, and refuses, communication and negotiation with nations he deems "evil." The two are hardly the same.

Clinton vs. Obama

jerry/corpus christi texas — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 15:59:42 GMT

Bruce, Hillary is not exactly a ten year vet herself. Following Bill around the office, except that time he was in session with Monica, is not job experience. Also making sure the white house is clean and neat is not part of the experience package either. If her senate record was her batting average, she'd be in the northern league right now.

Clinton vs. Obama

Michael K — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:00:55 GMT

"Sorry, I despise Mrs. CLinton, but she's right, and the inexperienced lightweight is wrong. This might help him with the lefty fringe who think if we talk to Ahminedijad we can all sing kumbaya, but not with the vast middle in this country."

It isn't about getting together like that. It's about negotiating things like their nuclear ambitions. It's about working out an answer for Iraq. It's about working out a solution to the entire middle east (remember, that regardless of what is happening between Abbas and Israel, there is still many more Palestinians who are not part of the current discussions), there are many other issues and other leaders out there, but you get the idea.

What's better: Sending in our overtaxed, under-manned, under-equipped military into these places, or sitting down and working out a negotiated settlement to the world's issues that doesn't involve the continued spilling of blood in the streets?

Clinton vs. Obama

Michael K — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:06:08 GMT

"Unfortunately, in this case, the nitpickers lose. She NEVER said she would not engage in dialoge with hostile nations. But she understands that the first step in diplomacy is not one leader to another leader; it begins with lower level ambassadors laying the groundwork. Presidents meet face to face with our allies, with whom all the groundwork has been laid. On the other hand, Bush disapproves of, and refuses, communication and negotiation with nations he deems "evil." The two are hardly the same."

So you're for 'business as usual'. Gotcha! Maybe it is time to turn things on their head. This isn't the same world as it was even 10 years ago. New world, new rules. Who said that these things -HAVE- to be worked out that way? There's nothing in any US law I know of. There's nothing in the UN that says they have to be done that way. So tell me again, why do we have to go at it this way? Why not sit, discuss and go from there. Will it happen within an hour of sitting at the table? Or even a week? No, but it is a beginning. It's something to build on. Meet now, meet 6 months from now, meet 6 months later, meet 3 months later, whatever. Maybe it's time for the President to start actually EARNING his paycheck. He might be the Commander In Chief, but at the end of the day, he is also the country's top diplomat.

Clinton vs. Obama

Henrette Jordon, Gainesville FL — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:10:56 GMT

[Following Bill around the office, except that time he was in session with Monica, is not job experience.]

To her credit, Hillary did help a lot with the typing and did some light filing.

Clinton vs. Obama

Dee of VA — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:13:42 GMT

I have to question my common sense and judgement--for remaining a Democrat. This is the same Party that has been criticizing George Bush for not speaking directly to Iran and Syria, saying he's further jeopardizing the security interests of the US by not doing so. Here is a quote by Hillary Clinton just this February, "You don't refuse to talk to bad people. I think life is filled with uncomfortable situations where you have to deal with people you might not like. I'm sort of an expert on that. I have consistently urged THE PRESIDENT to talk to Iran and talk to Syria. I think it's a sign of strength, not weakness." She didn't qualify her answer by saying he should send diplomatic envoys, she said "THE PRESIDENT." It is absoutely silly to suggest or state that Obama needed to qualify his statement. Like he's really going to pick up the phone and say, "Hey Hugo, stop by the house when you get a chance." This is absolute silliness! But the same Democrats that applauded Hillary Clinton for demanding immediate talks with Syria and Iran are now criticizing Obama. The same goes for Nancy Pelosi. She ignored the wishes of Bush, THE COMMANDER AND CHIEF, and sat down with president of Syria. And she was lauded by the Party. I agreed with her then, and I agree with Senator Obama now. Right or wrong, I believe in consistency, but I can't seem to say the same for my Party. How can anyone, with any credibility, argue that it's imperative for Bush to talk to Syria and Iran this year, for security interests especially with a pullout looming, but contend that there won't be in imperative in 2009...we can take a wait and see approach then?

I can not believe that anyone would buy into the excuse that by talking to these leaders, we would be lending to propaganda! News Flash: the greatest nation in modern history losing a completely unnecessary war to a bunch of bandits will be sufficient propaganda to last the next two centuries.

In general, I just don't understand the imperalistic attitude of this country that the only way to communicate with enemy countries in the Middle East, Africa and South/Central America is at the barrell of a gun. They've proven they can withstand our military might. Short of dropping a nuclear bomb, what are we going to do? We have normal relations with some of the worse human rights abusers in the history of mankind, including China and the Soviet Union, but talking to Black and Brown nations is unacceptable? We import Oil from Citgo, owned by Venezuela, and have their logo plastered on baseball stadiums, but a conversation with Chavez is unacceptable? Where has this silence gotten us? They are not going away! Castro has been in power for over 50 years; he's rich and comfortable while the Cuban people remain poor. Our silence hasn't hurt Castro. And treating them as if they are non-existent only fuels hatred among their young. As much I disdained the policies of Reagan, I respected the man's courage to make demands of his enemy to his face.

Clinton vs. Obama

Dave M., Miamisburg, OH — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:16:41 GMT

Clinton or Obama? I like them both. Don't care which one wins because either one can beat any of the republican candidates in the general election. So, I'm happy.

Clinton vs. Obama

Kristian O — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:19:27 GMT

That Hilary could be concerned about "propaganda" at a time when our freedom as a people is continuously being threatened by a terrorist element speaks to her style over substance approach. How can you kncok Bush for not engaging and then claim you'll only speak after the "pre-conditions" are suitable. Pre-conditions? I want Intellect and Capacity. Not the same political verbiage that sounds and looks good during campaign time, but gives the people nothing in the long term. Obama over Hilary anyday. Ya know why? Because as much as she wants us to think she's Bill Clinton because she's married to him, she ain't Bill Clinton. She's a Rodham Clinton.

Clinton vs. Obama

MK,MO — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:28:30 GMT

Dave M., Miamisburg, OH / hillary can't win the general election, even if she did she has always been part of the problem in washington not a solution, the kind of experience she brags about having is not what the country needs, her experience in lying and sucking up to corporate america is exactly what most of us are trying to escape from

Clinton vs. Obama

jerry/corpus christi texas — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:44:47 GMT

LOL, I thought the cubans were escaping socialism, only to run into a woman who is a socialist who wants to be president. Can't win for losing.

Clinton vs. Obama

Susan, Miami — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:45:35 GMT

I believe the Clintons WILL win another election AND they're democrats. That is the most important. Vote democratic, whoever gets the nomination.

Clinton vs. Obama

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:54:55 GMT

Michael - No, I'm not in favor of big sweeping change when it comes to matters that could, quite frankly, end up with nuclear weapons being launched at us. A change from the current policy, yes. A 180? No. We're not talking about meeting up with a buddy for a beer...we're talking about the President of the United States meeting up with a dictator of a hostile nation. It has huge implications, and it should be handled very carefully and it absolutely should not be rushed into.

Clinton vs. Obama

Newswatcher, Wisconsin — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 17:03:56 GMT

My latest rant: After looking over all the candidates, Dem and Repub, I'm forced to agree with Edmund above. I need a third party candidate. The crop of Democrats show me no leadership in the Senate or elsewhere. The Presidential candidates and Harry Reid would rather make political points than work out a compromise that would end the war, so scared that somebody on the other side of the aisle would cop some of the credit.
So our brave young men and women die for political gain, because nobody else in the Dems--including any of the candidates--will stand up and say enough already.
Once again, we'll be forced to choose between a Tweedle Dum and a Tweedle Dim, someone who says all the right things, and then sells out the middle class to the rich, the oil men, the medical men, who apparently can't seem to get enough (see Edward G. Robinson doing Johnny Rocco in "Key Largo"--"I want more, yeah that's right.")
Hilary looks like she went to the Ali McGraw school of Acting--she's aspartame artificial. Barack Obama sounds great. But I kind of don't think the Presidency is an entry-level position. Mitt Romney looks like a bobblehead with a time bomb underneath. Fred Thompson is your basic corporate shill with elocution lessons and a shaky understanding of natural science and middle class economics. John Edwards is a nice man, but he looked like Opie against Dick Cheney's Darth Vader in the '04 debates,let Cheney lie to his face (stating they'd never met before) and never once stood up for himself. He couldn't tell the Veep he was full of dog doo, so scared was John of looking controversial. The rest of the candidates shouldn't be scheduling bus routes for city schools, much less running this ocuntry. Lee Iacocca has a new book out: "Where Have All the Leaders Gone?" Another few years of $60 billion a month trade deficits and we'll know. They went to Asia, which will soon have enough of our money, they'll be able to tell us what to do. You think terrorists are the problem? What do you think will happen when China feels strong enough to take back the last jigsaw piece--Taiwan?
Hilary and Barack are playing a shell game with us--I wish there were someone out there who could break with the Dums and the Repoops and actually give America a vision and a path. Instead we're stuck in a vicious, partisan hate-fest, where the politicos divide us, conquer us, and then pick our pockets, all the time making us think we've got a choice.

Clinton vs. Obama

Genene, silver spring,MD — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 17:06:27 GMT

dee of va i like your comment. it is realy intellectual and studied. the fight of two elephants only hurts the grass. if Ronald Regan had sent some one to gorvechewv to tell him to tear down the wall between the two germanys he wouldn't have done it.
But as a president he stood up him self and said it and get done.So what is wrong with Barak to say he would? i don't think any thing is wrong.
let me make the question crear. will you talk to the presidents of those countries? and he said "yes'
what is the procidures? he might have his own as it will not going to just go to Iran or where ever and say AHMEDINIJAD I need to talk to you. let us think rationally.
he is atleast willing to do so.
I think Hillary thought she got his weak side but as for me she attacked her self and lost my credit. guys Hillary clinton and Bill clinton are to different people.
Barak well said! good job!

Clinton vs. Obama

Eli Hernandez, long beach, ca — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 17:11:11 GMT

Here we go..I like Obama and still intriged about Clinton..this last debate about those dictator will play strong in the important state of Florida. Both of then will have a hard time to gain the so important cuban american vote, the Clinton's already had a test of that...I guess Hilary is aware of it. Now, Obama will be...

I like both of this candidates but Obama need to be more aware of how to relate new appoches to a very complex world....

I still like Rudy..I guess he "fix everyone" better..more of the center sor of speak...

Clinton vs. Obama

Peebles Convan — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 17:23:23 GMT

I need a third party candidate.

Hey, you can't wrong with that.

Clinton vs. Obama

Bruce, NV — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 17:28:37 GMT

Michael K, the leaders of Iran, Syria, Libya and NK havent ever lived up to their ends of negotiations. As it is now, Iran and Syria are killing US troops, and Iran is holding American Citizens hostage. What would Barack say to them? "Hey, you guys still think the holocaust never happened? Howbout those lyin' jews?"

Really, Michael, the thought is absurd.

Clinton vs. Obama

POLpursun — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 18:22:08 GMT

Re these comments: Do you mean to tell me that The U. S. is ready to produce real, true shock and awe? OK, much more shock than awe, but nevertheless, some awe too. We, the whole world, that is, know that you can bully and wipe out whomever you please. That has always been a possibility for the empire, whatever was the enpire at any point in history. But do you really think there is a large enough percentage of the U. S. population which wants a different relationship with the rest of the world? That would be good since as long as some members of the species Homo sapiens believe that human society can be sustained over time by having most people cower and genuflect when the self-appointed elite strut arrogantly across the globe there will be the endless insanity of war.[After all it benefits the empire and it's folks --- what do you think happens to a significant percentage of that Pentagon budget? It can be argued that it's a mechanism for the transfer of resources (funds) up the class/privilege chain.] It is well known that violence begets violence. Yet there is wonderment that violence does, in fact, beget violence. "Why are people ready to die to kill us? They are uncivilized brutes. They are evil!!!" Oh no, they're not. They are members of this, apparently, insane species, called Homo sapiens who are the harbinger for the eventual disposition of our species unless attention is paid to the fact that at least some modicum of dignity seems to be an inherent element of being human. What was that said somewhere? Oh yes, man shall not live by bread alone, or something like that? The world will no doubt welcome an action which indicates that the U. S. is serious about it's world leadership responsibilities and may, indeed, understand leadership. [There are only two ways to lead, by inspiration and by example and they are not mutually exclusive.] This, in lieu of being the world's preeminent dictator. It needs to be recognized that empire is fundamentally incompatible with democracy. Oh yes, democracy is the best system, but that's true democracy. True democracy, if one is not being a con artist, does not emphasize things political and deemphasize things economic. Poor, ignorant, sick and hungry do not for effective thinking make ---- contemplation, introspection, effective decision making and problem solving say where you put ma.

Clinton vs. Obama

James, L.A.CA. — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 18:28:46 GMT

Obama can’t be taken seriously; he is a neophyte; speaking jargon and sound bites from his coaching staff. He was taking classes in foreign policy just a few months ago. He won’t be able to handle the job-and the country will be in more chaos than it already is. Senator Clinton is on another level all together; she is a solid, experienced professional.
You’ve got to be either stupid or stubborn not to see that.

Clinton vs. Obama

Tom, ILLannoyed — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 18:37:06 GMT

I thought that being president was all about doing whats best for the "American" people. And I have yet to hear 1 candidate address the real issue that is polarizing this nation with anything remotely close to a solution...ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION and BORDER SECURITY. Forget the war in Iraq. The real problem is here in America where our ports are unprotected and anybody (and usually their families) can sneak in with God only know what. Our "Melting Pot" is being turned into a salsa with an alarming hot sauce. What is it going to take to wake the real citizens of this country up and see how this border issue effects our lives right here, right now, and how it could have massivly devestating reprocussions. My hope and prayer is that it's not a nuclear device going off in a major city. We've already had our financial hub destroyed in 01 and all we did was bomb and start a war with a country that had little if anything to do with the attacks of 9-11. I think our new president needs to focus the USA first and not care about what other world leaders think. Our next president needs to have the strength, commitment and the balls to stand up and fix this problem before its too late. To prevent another 9-11, only the next one will be 10 times worse.

Clinton vs. Obama

Lewis, Cincinnati, Ohio — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 18:46:17 GMT

Carrie from Iowa--quit being ridiculous!!! No one is talking about any country releasing nuclear weapons. Meetings between heads of state ALWAYS are followed by negotiations and diplomacy. I'm quite sure Obama didn't think he was going to hop in air force one to visit Castro for a friendly lunch!!! You're certainly have drank the Clinton kool-aid!!!

Clinton vs. Obama

Siam adjaloo — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 18:49:17 GMT

I really do like Barrack and Hillary. What I don't like is Hillary just attacking Barrack for saying what she herself has said before. This attitude smacks of hypocrisy and populist in nature. If Hillary is going to flip-flop the way she has just started, then some of us are going to find is difficult voting for him. We want a person who can be brave and intelligent. Not somebody who cannot make up her mind whether she will talk to her enemy or not.

Clinton vs. Obama

Phil Latter — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 18:59:16 GMT

It is most absurd to think that not meeting with today's leaders would cause a calm. A agree that there may be some conservation but at the same time we must realize that the president of the United States of American is the most powerful person in the world and taking this office you would need to be on one accord with other leaders. Therefore, I find it most preposterous that Clinton wouldnt find the need to meet with world leaders. Obama clearly overrides her on this issue.

Clinton vs. Obama

rip van winkle — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 19:12:20 GMT

This story is drummed up by the right wing press so they can act like they have a shot GET USED TO SAYIG PRESIDENT CLINTON it feels great see ya in 08

Clinton vs. Obama

MT — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 19:24:29 GMT

Hillary use to have a suspected affiliation with communisim while she was in college, then when she was pushing the National Health Policy she was again portrayed as pushing communist oriented policies, then it was reported she has changed her way and "big business and big insurance companies made peace with her (?? hmm does that mean she was bought off??) Now She is saying to open up his own dialog with these countries is naive but she would send envoys first. That is the same answer. She is smooth enough to answer like a seasoned politician. We need new ideas and new approach to our long time problems. Especially those that seem to have originated with tricky dick's administration. People like Rums--- and Chain-me, are all on the surface pro American but our son our daughters can go to the fron in a desert vietnam all over again. When Bush #2 said the war is over I knew we were in trouble.

Clinton vs. Obama

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 19:50:40 GMT

Lewis from Cincinnati - Quit being insulting!!! Meetings of heads of states ALWAYS are preceded by negotiations and diplomacy. We have basically no working relationship with the countries mentioned. One must be established before the president goes trotting off to meet those leaders. It's very simple - you build the bridge before you send the boss across the river.

Clinton vs. Obama

Mengist — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 20:08:13 GMT

It looks like Hillary is good for domestic issues. On the other hand Barrack looks better in foreign issues. Both are interesting poeple. The sad thing is both are running
at the same time we have to miss one of them. I want to see a Woman running this country. Also I want to see America run by Black that will proves it to the world America is really advancing.

Clinton vs. Obama

Ashe, SF CA — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 20:12:56 GMT

If meeting with rogue leaders and dictators ensures the safety/security of the American people....then I'm all for a president sucking up his ego, rolling his sleeves and getting the job done.

What HRC is advocating is the same, ineffectual foreign policy that has not worked. She has a very insular view of the world when in today's times we need a president who has to possess a thorough knowledge of the world. We need a president who is cool under pressure. Clearly, HRC got rattled by Obama and if she flies off the handle so quickly...how is she going to stand up to the pressures of the world? Go Obama '08

Clinton vs. Obama

Trace, Chicago, IL — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 21:50:44 GMT

Hillary rattled by Obama?? Give me a break!!! Debates are contentious at times! Obama does not have a CLUE - and after all of the MESS that the current Idiot in Charge has us NECK DEEP in - the very last thing we need is a newbie without a clue! Any MORON knows that with countries that we have NO displomatic presence - the infrastructure has to be built - It is mighty interesting that folks can decipher what Edwards, and Juliani, Romeny and any other MALE says - but let Hillary say Hi and folks want to RIP HER TO SHREDS!!! If folks would just think about WHAT was said and not worry anout WHO said it - they would actually get the message!

Clinton vs. Obama

Trace, Chicago, IL — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 21:56:55 GMT

Clinton vs. Obama

DAD, Carrizo Springs, Tx — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 22:18:56 GMT

Because of our current president, I am convinced our next president will be a Democrat. The Republican party does not have anybody "waiting in the wings" that is a strong enough candidate to win the election. I am further convinced our choices from the Democratic party will be Hillary and Obama. I am not impressed with Hillary, but she is my choice because Obama scares the hell out of me. I am a supporter of the 2nd Amendment and I am sure Hillary will do all she can to legislate our rights as guaranteed in the 2nd amendment into non-existance. However, Obama was raised Muslim and that in and of itself and we have been under attack by members of the Muslim religion for so long (remember 9/11???) that I actually fear a presidential leader who is a Muslim. So, given these facts, I believe Hillary would be the best candidate of the two.

Clinton vs. Obama

Mary - Maryville, TN — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 03:05:24 GMT

Go Obama Go! If only John Kerry had found his voice in 2004 to the 'filp flop' and 'swift boaters' I wouldn't have to be so frustrated with what is in my White House today. Obama, it's your fight to be won; not Hilary's...go for it. You are scoring big points with this Independent voter by having a back bone and not laying down and playing dead.

Clinton vs. Obama

Paul , Cypress CA — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 03:48:19 GMT

Looks like OBAMA will NOT be Hillary's running mate. He is making that clear now. So, lets see, who is from the south that will run as VEEP? I'm looking toward New Mexico! Gov Richardson are you listening?
We all know that Bill will be the real VP anyway!

Clinton vs. Obama

Sam Porter — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 03:56:08 GMT

I'm not Jewish or black. Most of us are not. So why in the hell would we vote for these two stooges? Vote Ron Paul, he's the only one who isn't a slave to Israel.

Clinton vs. Obama

Chuck Lauria, Suwanee, Georgia — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 10:13:03 GMT

The real question is are we going to settle once again for"Pander Politics" or face reality & go for "Candor Politics". The only candidate in either party willing to "tell it like it is" is Joe Biden.

The rest are playing to the ultra liberal or extreme right wing of their respective parties.

Clinton vs. Obama

Conservative Ike — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 13:06:14 GMT

Because of our current president, I am convinced our next president will be a Democrat. .

Deja vu. Four years ago, we heard the same thing from Howard Deans campaign.

How'd that work out anyway?

Clinton vs. Obama

GR, Seattle — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:19:48 GMT

Somebody please tell me what horrible consequences they think will occur if the U.S. President interacted with countries who are not friendly to us. It is fun to throw the "naive" word around, but it is irresponsible to do so without backing up your argument.

The truly naive people are the Repubicans who do not seem to realize that there is anything wrong with America's standing in the world. Anybody who thinks that we can change a country's behavior by not interacting with it should look to Cuba -- our most stunning foreign policy failure. The country is within rowing distance of us, and yet it has had the same hostile leader for 48 years. We sure showed them!

Dangerous times need bold leadership, not timid equivocators like Hillary who is afraid to take a chance because "it might be used for propaganda" or "it could make things worse." If we don't take a chance that we could make things worse, how will it ever get better? It is truly naive to think that we can continue to muddle through.

It is time for a change -- time for Barack Obama!

Clinton vs. Obama

Y, MI — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 17:49:56 GMT

I think it was incredibly dishonest of Hillary Clinton to criticize Obama's willingness to talk with foreign leaders, when just 3 months ago in Iowa, she had suggested the same approach!

http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_112220939.html

Clinton Blasts President Bush's Foreign Policy

(CBS/AP) DECORAH, Iowa Hillary Rodham Clinton on Sunday criticized President Bush's foreign policy, and said if she were president she would do things differently, including beginning diplomatic talks with supposed enemies and sending envoys throughout the world.

"I would begin diplomatic discussions with those countries with whom we have differences, to try to figure out what is the depth of those differences," said Clinton, who spoke to about 1,000 people at Luther College in Decorah in northeastern Iowa.

"I think it is a terrible mistake for our president to say he will not talk with bad people. You don't make peace with your friends -- you have to do the hard work of dealing with people you don't agree with," said Clinton, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.

Opening talks with other countries doesn't mean the U.S. won't defend its interests whenever necessary, she said, "but what it means is that we should discuss other routes before we decide we're going to pursue military options.

"We cannot provide the leadership we need unless we are willing to try engage the other countries," she said,

She dished out plenty of criticism about the war in Iraq, and said when it comes to Iran, the U.S. needs to engage those with the real power -- the clerics.

Of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad she said: "He's like their front man, he's like their puppet. He goes out and gets people agitated and says things that everybody responds to, but he's not making the decisions. The decisions are being made within the alternative government of these clerics.

"We have no idea of how these people think, we have no contact with them," Clinton said, arguing that she's advocated for years to have a process of diplomacy with Iran.

"If we ever have to use force against any country, it should be seen as an action of last resort, not first resort," she said.

Clinton vs. Obama

Allison — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 17:52:23 GMT

GR:

"Somebody please tell me what horrible consequences they think will occur if the U.S. President interacted with countries who are not friendly to us."

Because it legitimatizes the existence of a countries leaders who we regard as bad. Showing the President of the US, and it doesn't matter who it is, sitting next to a tin-horn dictator is a great propaganda tool for that dictator. It shows he's/she's on a level playing field with the most powerful leader of the free world.

So, if as Obama has stated, he shows up in say, North Korea. The little maniac running that country sitting with Obama will send a powerful message to the world that he should be listened to. That would not be a good thing.

Clinton vs. Obama

J.Kuan — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 22:36:46 GMT

Obama rules!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HRC sucks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If BO were taking classes on foreign policy recently, damn, he's got to be the smartest and more insightful and "hands-on" candidate. He demonstrates a better grasp of the kind of foreign policy relevant to the 21st century.

HRC, man, this chick brings toooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much drama back in the people's house. Not to mention, she's THE ESTABLISHMENT in SKIRT, a bushite, a hawk, need I say more?

I don't know 'bout y'all but I'd much rather see my president reaching out to his colleagues of other countries... And the thought that this can be pursued with out ground work is proposterous...shame on the Clinton camp for being naive to think that A president would go about this without laying a ground work. Though I congratulate them for FINALLY initiating the one-on-one, she/they picked the wrong occasion though because this gives BO a head start...lol

Clinton vs. Obama

Cyrus — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:10:07 GMT

Thank you Edmud. You made the point.

Clinton vs. Obama

severio nesich. casselberry. florida — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 21:13:26 GMT

THE MORE I LISTEN OBAMA, IS TALKING LIKE A HAWK. NOW HE WANT TO INVADE PAKISTAN, TO GET OSAMA LADIN, IS HE CRAZY ? FIRST, HE WANT TO BRING OUT TROOPS BACK HOME, AND IN THE OTHER SIDE OF THE MOUTH, HE WANT TO GO IN PAKISTAN, SO, WHICH ONE IS TO BE, BRING OUR TROOP BACK HOME, FROM THE CIVIL WAR FORM IRAQ, OR GO TO PAKISTAN , INVADING THIS NATION, AND START ANOTHER WAR. WHAT IS TO BE MR OBAMA ?, LOOK HE IS GETTING DESESPERADO MAN, BECAUSE SENATOR CLINTON IS BEATING HIM EVERY WERE, AND NOW OBAMA ,IS TALKING LIKE BUSH, HE IS A LOSER .HE NEVER WILL BE PRESIDENT.
STAY AS A SENATOR.

Clinton vs. Obama

Raul, Merced,Ca — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 16:34:06 GMT

The republicans have done it again. Put us in debt up to our ears and ruined our image around the world. Bill Clinton did a good job in getting our economy in order and out of the mess the Republicans left before him. He did good in lowering our debt,lowering rates,lowering unemployment and reviving our economy. Hillary will do the same.All those who complain about her weaknesses said the same about Bill and they were wrong then and wrong now.