Obama takes another shot at Clinton

PATRIOT — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:22:30 GMT

Just goes to show you, Hillary Clinton is the most qualified, experienced candidate running. She will take charge on day 1, with no "training" necessary. for more info. go to hillaryclinton.com

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Kobi — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:26:49 GMT

She voted for the war.

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

John Doe, Phila, PA — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:27:58 GMT

yeah, she's fabulous - reminds me so much of her loser husband, it makes my flesh crawl.....

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Frank, Tulsa, OK — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:28:32 GMT

Obama can go jump in Lake Michigan. I can just see him busily "texting" the various heads of government as he sits in the Oval Office on the first day. His statement is just neophyte hype. Hillary Clinton understands that before a new president makes direct contact for policy discussions, career diplomats, our respective ambassadors, and even the secretary of state must pave the way. How do you think it is that there are treaties and agreements already prepared and in nice binders when the president meets with foreign leaders? Obama is pandering; but wait! He's the one who claimed to be a different kind of candidate. Well, he is: an inexperienced one.

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Kathie Hansen, Mt. Vernon, WA. — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:30:16 GMT

Hilary Clinton is a power hungry manipulator who changes her mind on issues depending how the wind blows.

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

John Campbell — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:31:30 GMT

It shows that Hillary has the mind set of George. If elected, it will be more of the same. What a waste!

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

FL — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:32:00 GMT

Ha… It’s funny this has completely backfired on Clinton. She thought she could say she has more experience in dealing with foreign policy but this is the same experience that she used to vote for the war in Iraq. Obama has completely crushed her and now she has to defend herself by saying she will not continue the Bush Foreign Policy. Which according to her answer she is.

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

jerry/corpus christi texas — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:37:04 GMT

Prove it Patroit; How is she experienced? Please don't use her husband's record, that will show that is what she is running on. What has she done on her own? Prove it if you can!

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Zach, Harrisburg, PA — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:37:31 GMT

I disagree with Hilary. Obama is correct in wanting to meet with world leaders without preexisting conditions. This sets up a rapport and shows a willingness to develop a relationship based on understanding. The better individuals interact, the more likely compromise and solution will follow.

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Biggy — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:37:55 GMT

I wonder where Hillary would be if she had never married a Governor and ex-President... I'm sure she would have found someone else's coat tails to hop on.

For more information go to Hillary's-a-Wank.com

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

GR, Seattle — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:39:47 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!

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

keno — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:40:09 GMT

this is the op story on the first read page .Gonzos testimoaning and lyng to he peoples reps. wasnt enough .Guess i will look for it down the page.his is such a gossip non story.Come on

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Me, Midwest — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:40:35 GMT

I really dislike Hillary, but... This shows just how horribly bad Obama really is. He lacks judgement, experience, and real understanding of both global politics and diplomacy. He thinks that meeting these leaders without preconditions shows we are willing to talk. What he obviously doesn't understand is that they don't think the way we do; their entire reasoning is different. They see it as a power statement (their power) and that they are, therefore, in charge and even the great United States recognizes their power and bends to them. Rather than encourage dialog to improve things, that would show them that continued bad acts will give them even more access to the U.S. President who, they will belive, will eventually offer them huge gifts to stop acting poorly. They will also use such a meeting as a massive propaganda tool to show to their people and solidify their power base and show how "right" and "wise" they are.

I really do hate Hillary, but Obama would be a disaster.

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

CMW, New York — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:40:47 GMT

HRC is not the most experienced. The longest resumes are reserved for Biden and Dodd. When they had the opportunity, Clinton, Dodd, and Biden got it wrong on the war authorization vote. This tired, Beltway-entrenched experience did not provide leadership when it was most needed. America needs a change in both policy and its leadership. Obama offers the opportunity to do so.

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Mary Andreason, Atlantic City, NJ — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:40:51 GMT

Obama has the courage to stand up and speak up for what he believes in, this is very refreshing, and this is what our country needs today more than ever.

That courage is what is missing in the other politicians of today- no spine, no principles- both Republicans and Democrats.

For this reason, Obama is a true contender.

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

ak GA — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:43:38 GMT

I love Barrack's passion & charisma. But have to agree that Hillary is more seasoned, and plenty tough and smart enough. But like most I would like to see a non-polarizing next president. Bush claimed to be that person, then we ended up with a Cheney-led imperialist government. How to fix, I don't know. Maybe Bill Richardson?

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Carolyn Grace, Northfield, MN — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:44:39 GMT

Obama has been great on this. He has turned it back onto Hillary & her vote on the war. Round 1 goes to Obama, not HRC. She will do & say anything to win. I saw yesterday where her & Bill have donated $100,000 to help build a library in SC. And how much did she pay to get Tom Vilsack's endorsement? And also the state representative in SC? But money can't buy you love.

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Zach, Harrisburg, PA — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:46:10 GMT

A further note on this situation. Sending delegates from the US to interact in diplomacy sends the leader of that country the wrong message. It says I am not fully committed to dealing with you directly. Leaders meeting together brings validity to their statements about wanting to alleviate disputes.

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Bush Republican — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:47:07 GMT

Then Clinton's were scum bags then & they're scum bags still.

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

George, seattle — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:48:17 GMT

" You just can't promise to meet with leaders. There need to be conditions. There needs to be leverage."

Hillary -- the United States has tens of thousands of nuclear warheads sitting in silos ready to incinerate any country that we choose. I think that is leverage enough to risk talking to the leaders of those countries.

Hillary is proving that it is possible to be both nasty and timid at the same time. I think that she lacks self confidence; she has been used as right wing propaganda for so long that she is afraid that smart world leaders might do the same thing to her as the vast right wing conspiracy.

This whole "controversy" is simply Hillary's sour grapes at losing the debate -- and it is backfiring on her.

By the way, First Read, when you stick a Hillary memo into your article it is appropriate to use quotation marks.

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Donna - Kalkaska - Michigan — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:50:40 GMT

I read this article 3 times.....Obama is saying the same thing as Clinton. Clinto says " I would not meet with world dictators without preconditions. Obama says " I would be willing to meet with the leaders of Syria, Iran, etc. with preconditions. It's the same thing...worded differently.
Obama has big dreams, but has not earned the respect nor does he have the experience, to lead our country.

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Kim, Dallas, Texas — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:52:46 GMT

The last paragraph in this entry is, I assume, the thinking of Clinton allies and not First Read. However, the way it's written, it certainly looks like some editorializing on the part of Mark Murray. This wouldn't be the first time that First Read has hinted that they have a dog in this race and it isn't Obama.

That's the biggest problem with this entire election cycle...the media have already decided that Clinton is the nominee and the other candidates are just participating to occupy our time until the actual election.

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

GR — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:53:06 GMT

You state this as if is true: "You just can't promise to meet with leaders. There need to be conditions. There needs to be leverage."

Saying you are 'willing' to meet is not a 'promise".

Conditions? You mean like the Bush Admin has done demanding the halt of enrichment before talks? Now that's naive.

Leverage? Are military arsenals and economic clout are powerful leverage.

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Ray, Pittsburgh, PA — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:53:40 GMT

Every time someone says that Hillary will be ready on day 1. I ask them ready for what? More of the same, if she is going to base her presidency on her past experience we have to ask ourselves if we are happy with what we have had to deal with in the past (IRAQ)(WHITEWATER)(Lewinski) etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. For as much as I hate Dubuah, there are people out there who hate Hillary just as much... We need someone who can bring everyone together, we need a change. I think that Barack Obama is the right MAN for the job.

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Jonathan C, Jasper, AL — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:54:55 GMT

This whole spat is much ado about nothing. I really saw no substantive difference in the two answers at the debate. In truth, the both promised the same thing. I never heard Obama say that he'd fly out to lunch with Ahmadinejad on Jan 21st, 2009. Implied in his response was that he would start the diplomatic process, sending envoys and diplomats, followed by a secretary of state, and finally a presidential meeting itself. Hillary jumped on the situation to paint a portrait of an inexeperienced leader, and Obama is now launching a counter-offensive to paint Hillary as more-of-the-same. In reality, they'd both do exactly the same thing.

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Dave, Tn — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:56:20 GMT

If this spat keeps up, someone might even leak the secret that the US is part of the UN. And, that we went through 12 years and 17 resolutions of 'disarm, or else'. That the same intelligence was good enough for Clinton to bomb the hell out of Baghdad in '98. That no one, including Saddam's own generals, was aware he had no WMDs. That if we had done nothing, 2007 was going to be the "best guess" year Saddam would have the bomb. If the UN runs out of paper on Iran, and the world says "just kidding" what then? I say put a big FSBO sign on the UN, and throw the bums out.

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Robert Wilhite, Jacksonville, FL — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:00:57 GMT

Most experienced? What office has Hillary Clintion ever held? What policies has she initiated or executed? My wife is a Doctor. I guess that makes me qualified to perform an operation.

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Faye Moore, Kansas City Missouri — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:02:54 GMT

Hillary's attack on Obama came across to me as unfair and opportunistic. It was as if she was just waiting for a chance to put him down. To think, I was just beginning to believe in her soft side...
The good thing is Obama now knows her game and he can be prepared. His responses already have been pointed and pertinent.

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

john doe, seattle, wash. — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:05:10 GMT

@Me, Midwest: Not quite. The foreign leaders in question like to make a big deal about how the US won't talk to them. It allows them to play the victim (we're ready to negotiate, mutual respect, dialogue, blah, blah). By actually agreeing to the talk, we gain leverage. Now talking means nothing -- as it does in reality (talk is cheap). Once you pull the "they wont talk to us" rug out from under them, you are then able to pressure them on the real issue (whatever it might be). Obama didn't phrase it this way, but it is a side benefit of his approach.

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Don, San Antonio TX — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:05:31 GMT

Hillary is horrible, she's a witch and it will be pathetic if she get's back in the white house. What's wrong with talking to other nations? Odviously she doesnt talk to her husband enough and that led to there breakdown in marriage with the intern. Obama has a fresh new outlook and a good change. We need to do things completely different than we have done in the past but bottom line is Juliani will become the next president period. Sorry to say but it wont be a women or a black man at point in history. Maybe 10-20 years down the road but not now with how this country is still divided in many states.

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Terry CC Iowa — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:05:35 GMT

What seems to be lacking in this discussion is what kind of people will HRC or Obama select for their respective foreign policy? We have to keep in mind that a president is only as good as the people they select for cabinet posts and the environment the president projects.

With Obama ability to work with individuals on both sides of the isle, he can bring experience with him to the WH.

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

John the hog farmer ( no PHD) — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:06:06 GMT

Sorry, but Obama just clinched my vote against him. His likening Clinton to Bush on having the same approach to Foreign leaders sounds exactly like the same B.S. Republicans use against Dems. Obama's got great potential, another 8 years from now he could well be the best thing to ever hit the presidency. He's a great oracle, but he is not ready to meet the challenges the Republicans will through at him. Hillary has survived 16 years or more of Republican attacks, and has held up better than most. She's better suited and more experienced. A Clinton / Obama ticket is in order. The potential to lost the presidency in 2008 looms greater with an Obama nomination than a Hillary nomination. Hillary is not the zaniac several make her out to be. She will do this country good as will Obama, after some more experience. He simply can't be better prepared to step into the job because he's able to deliver a good speach. Talk is cheap. How will he handle a plethora of bad mouthing, the likes of which he has yet to see? The likes of which Hillary has already overcome !

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Don, San Antonio TX — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:08:55 GMT

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

David, Columbia, South Carolina — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:09:07 GMT

Success is in the details. Sen. Clinton said she would send diplomats to discuss and make sure the leaders wanted to pursue peaceful options. She did not say she wanted to set preconditions. Sen. Clinton is showing signs of instinctively following the process that historically leads to results in the diplomatic and political worlds.

Sen. Obama has what to show us? A new face but no evidence of grappling with complex legislative issues?

The media, both internet and traditional, is again proving its into the cutesy word-weaving but can't do the journalism that the Founding Fathers expected. The media needs to go back and dig through the recollections, video and written record of what Sen. Obama said about the U.S. entering the Iraq war back just prior to the 2002 mid-term elections when the Bush administration was feverishly twisting arms to have an up or down vote prior to the elections. Sen. Obama said what?

The media also needs to recreate for the public the conditions that existed in the Senate when Sen. Clinton and her colleagues had to vote on the war in Iraq. The Senate doesn't have a separate CIA or any other separate organization to evaluate Executive branch "evidence." At the time Sen. Clinton had to vote, the nation did not know Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Hasert, DeLay and Rice were serial liars that would plunge us into a war based on their political delusions.

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Stan — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:12:06 GMT

I used to support Clinton but now I am pro Obama; Their attack on Obama explain while her negative is up their in the poll. Overall, I am going with Obama because he is the tomorrow in this run for white house….also on experience...Let's say you needed open heart surgery and your options were a young cardiologist or the homemaker wife of a former top surgeon; who would you choose? I don’t know about you but as for me and my family our choice will be the young cardiologist…Also, Phil Jackson a great basketball coach won a lot of NBA Championships. Maybe his wife should be in line to be the first female NBA head coach.

On experience President, Kennedy noted in one speech that "experience is like tail-lights on a boat which illuminate where we have been when we should be focusing on where we should be going"

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

rick,ky — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:12:22 GMT

Hillary made a Big mistake by taking on Obama so early in the process.I did'nt count the # of positive & Obama leaning respones the last couple days, but seemed to me a lot more agreed with his response to the Machine than agreed with her. I like it that he continues to hammer her, for calling him Naive. It does'nt show negative politics, it shows that he will Not let challenges go unanswered. Go Obama

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

s. doe — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:12:52 GMT

BeJezzy,
I personally think Barack Obama doesnt think it is compulsory he wins the dem. nom. or becomes the president. He more importantly wants to change the way politics is done in the US. U cant claim to be one thing and do the other. U cant simply say u r for the american people when u did not read the intelligence reports prior to Iraq. U cant say u support our troops when u sent them to an imbecilic war just becos that was the popular opinion then..just bcos the whole country was caught in a frenzy of war. A leader has to consider all parts and perspectives of a question just for the benefit of the american people, make a decision and stick with it.
U cant claim to be for the american people when NAFTA, CAFTA, job outsourcing to indians is the norm when 30% of indigenous software engineers are unemployed.
Nail her to the wall I say...for all I care...Anyone (and that includes Kucinich) apart from HRC, Gravel and all of em republicans should do the job.

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:13:44 GMT

And here we go again...LOL. Obama fans will keep on supporting him, Hillary haters will keep on bashing her and Hillary supporters will keep on supporting her. Has anything new really been said on this in the last 24 hours? If it is, I missed it in all of the regurgitation of previous comments.

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Joe Justice — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:14:13 GMT

Mark: Your last paragraph looks an awful lot like pure, unfiltered Clinton propoganda and nothing like journalism. I know it's a blog, but you don't even attempt to connect the last two short sentences to Clinton's people--they look entirely like your own. What gives?

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Bruce, NV — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:15:50 GMT

I don't like either of them, but it shows how much better she is than him. Good lord, what a load of naivete. Who's gonna play the guitar when we all hold hands and sing kumbaya?

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Frank, Tulsa, OK — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:19:23 GMT

NOTE TO ZACH IN HARRISBURG: I might not totally disagree if you take your point to the fullest implementation. Let's close all of the U.S. embassies, clear out the Department of State and take a real hard look at the foreign aid budget. Do you know how much money that would save us? I spoke in support of Senator Clinton's answer, but I sure would go for getting out of the diplomacy business the way it has been done in my lifetime and use technology to let the top officials communicate with each other. But the reality is that is not going to happen. And then there is the fact that anyone who is president cannot devote the amount of time necessary to do the amount of talking that is required to interact with all the players in this world. Surely you don't advocate that the president not delegate at least some of the work load.

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Jim, Carbondale, IL — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:20:07 GMT

Hillary Clinton isn't that bad, but I will never forgive her and other DLC Democrats who showed a complete lack of political courage and voted for this war. All of the information to stop the war was out there at the time, and if a bunch of poor college students like me could figure out that invading Iraq would lead to disaster, why couldn't our so-called "leaders?" Clinton was too afraid to be labeled unpatriotic, so she refused to stand up and do what is right. If she had, she would have the nomination locked up right now. The lack of courage shown by Clinton and other Democrats who supported Bush on this war has allowed this disaster to happen, because many of our elected officials are more worried about keeping their jobs rather than doing what is best for our nation. Obama may not be an institutionalized Washingtonian, but at least he showed political courage when it counted, and that matters to me. Experience is important, but it isn't everything. The Bushies were supposed to be the most experienced political theorists and would run our government like a business, remember? How did that work out? It is more important to me to look at the decisions a person made when it mattered. We need courage, not calculation. Tact and strategy are important, but do we remember Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Kennedy for their calculation or their courage during difficult times? While Obama was not in the Senate at the time, his refusal to support the war was still a risk since he was a candidate for the Senate, and it actually helped him win. This is the whole problem with the pro-free trade, hawkish, DLC Dems: They are too afraid to stand up for what is right, and so they get stomped on by Republicans in most presidential elections and they appear to be disingenuous. All we need to do is remember the campaigns of Gore and Kerry to remember this and Clinton is just more of the same: another good person who is afraid to be herself. By the way, Bill Clinton's tenure as president may sound good compared to Bush's disaster, but we must still remember that he was not much of a progressive champion. He neglected fair trade in favor of free trade, he signed the telecommunications act which allowed Fox News and Clear Channel to dominate our media, which helped make the case for war later on, and his moral indiscretions brought shame to his party and our nation. Again, he was better than Bush, but it is time that we elect a leader with a vision that will make us viable in the 21st century, and Obama is the one who can do this. We need a vision that unites us and makes us better. We don't need to keep living the culture wars of the last 40 years. We have made considerable progress, but there is so much to be done still. Its time to move on into the 21st century at last.

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Lisa Hampton, Newark, NJ — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:22:27 GMT

Obama is the man! Go Obama go! Hillary you and Bill need to just retire and have Chelsea have some kids and become grandparents. It's time for a new generation to take over.

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

lylepink — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:25:36 GMT

About the only thing I can see Obama has going for him is the false claim of Hillary voting to go to war in Iraq. This claim has been proven false time and again, and yet his supporters keep bringing it up. That will begin to hurt him in the future, although IMHO, Obama has ZERO chance of being elected POTUS in 08.

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

sola adebayo, New York — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:30:35 GMT

Hi,
I know..I know..we all know. He is really beating her on the head with this, isnt he? I am actually dissapointed in Clinton's team. They should have warned her before she made that "irresponsible and naive" statement. They didnt see they were pigeonholing themselves in between Obama and Bush and allowing themselves to be nailed as hawkish and neocons (but in a dress).
This lack of foresight in seeing beyond immiediate political gains comes back to the same question of "how the he** did you support invasion of Iraq?"
For all Bush-Cheney tough talk...as soon as they started talking to North Korea..see what happened, they shut down the nukes. We as America have the leverage (if just in the name!) to sit and discuss with anyone from anywhere in the world.
Will Ms Clinton wait till she sees the chinese in Venezuela b4 she talks to Chavez?

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

bb — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:31:58 GMT

Throw the UN bums out.... oh wait, until we need them to save our stupid asses each time- right Dave?

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

John, Billerica, MA — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:39:48 GMT

Dealing with dictators???? Hmmm.. At least Hillary knows what hole her hubby dug when he shook hands with Slobodan Milosevic, (anyone remembers???) I can see Obama doing the same and we all will see the horrible things that come right after these mediocre acts.

Don’t you people have enough with presidents that know nothing of foreign policies??

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Jim, Carbondale, IL — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:43:39 GMT

Hillary Clinton showed a complete lack of political courage by supporting this war in the first place. The evidence was there, but the debate never happened due to a media and political elite afraid of being called unpatriotic. I don't care how much experience she has: I will never, ever, forgive her and other complicit Democrats for that. Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Kerry, Blitzer, Matthews, and the rest of the so-called experienced political and media figures can backpeddle all they want and claim that "we had no idea Bush would mislead us," but they missed the mark when it counted. Where was our Thoreau? Who would stand up for what they believed in because it was the right thing to do? I think Obama's ability to make that decision when it mattered worth more than all the experience in the world.

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Vik, NY,NY — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:47:35 GMT

If Hillary is so experienced and so ready to lead, why did she vote for the war?

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Linda, Philadelphia, PA — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:49:56 GMT

People are taking Obama's statement too literally, and Clinton is trying to differentiate her approach. I believe Obama was trying to show he would be more open than Bush and willing to start building some bridges with other leaders. That doesn't mean that he would have rushed off to see those leaders without preparation, including consultations with staff and State Department and some assessment of the overall conditions. Come on, people!

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Krista H. — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:49:57 GMT

SO, SORRY ABDUL OBAMA.
BUT, YOU WILL NOT HAVE MY VOTE!!!!!!

NOT NOW, NOT EVER!!!!

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Dan P, Eastpointe, MI — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:50:41 GMT

Time for a new face with new politics. NWO

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

David, TN — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:52:28 GMT

A wise man once told me that there are two kinds of expeience. First there is the person who has been in a job 25 years, but has one year of experience repeated 25 times. Then, there is the person who has 25 years of experience, and who learns and changes with each year.
Hillary seems to fit the first category. Obama may fit the second.

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

JG, Denver, CO — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:56:19 GMT

Obama got it right on this issue. You've got to talk to your enemies. The alternative to communication is war. Even though Richard Nixon is a bad president, his historical trip to China opened the door between the two countries and that ranked as his biggest accomplishment in office.

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Jessica, Monroe, WI — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:56:30 GMT

I don't think inexperience is always a bad thing. I said inexperience not stupidity. As long as the person coming into the job is smart, thoughtful, creative, and willing to stand up and do what is right. Sometimes a fresh take on things is what is needed to achieve great things! Obama my not have presidential experience but then neither does Hillary!

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

FD, Brooklyn, NY — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:59:21 GMT

Hillary talks and has the same ideas as Bush, it's disgusting. Obama won that question. He won the entire debate and will win the presidency.

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 17:00:20 GMT

Joe Justice - You recognized that they came from Clinton, didn't you? Clearly Mark just forgot to add the "" and attribute it to someone. You never make a mistake when you are writing something?

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Zach, Harrisburg, PA — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 17:02:07 GMT

To Frank, Tulsa, OK:

You raise good points. I agree entirely that the president should delegate some of his responsbilities. However, I feel that diplomacy would work best if the leaders were able to sit down and talk, rather than sending token delegates. Plus, direct contact between leaders prevents misunderstandings. If delegates' conversations lose their meaning when reporting back to the president, all diplomacy will fail. I'm just trying to cover all bases.

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

david mah, NYC, NY — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 17:02:13 GMT

You can say whatever you want to catch people's vote, but when you are really won the game then you have to face all the problems for real.

No money no honey! When you promise everything to us, where are you going to get money? How will you go to clean up George Bush's mass? You may not like Clinton, but are you sure Obama can do it without any really experiece.

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Mark M, CA — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 17:02:53 GMT

Different time, same story. Choose the lesser of two evils.

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Yan, Rochester, MN — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 17:03:51 GMT

Obama is nasty! But aren't all politicians?
This could really hurt his "clean" image.

I hated Republican's tactics of attacking people who disagree with them. Is Obama learning from Karl Rove's playbook?

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Kona Hawaii — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 17:07:04 GMT

How about a Edwards/Obama ticket?

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

samuel doe — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 17:08:04 GMT

Pls...pls Barack Obama..do me o e favor. Its a personal favor. I am begging u. Pls help me nail McCain and Romney (that androidic sob) just as u r nailing her.
McCain is already a hurt soul..so turn him over gently but can u quickly wipe that smile off Romney's face?.
Once again, I am pleading..so do it quick. I am waiting already.

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

vamonticello, Hampton, VA — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 17:08:11 GMT

Obama is right. Hillary is wrong.

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Bo Columbus, Ohio — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 17:09:11 GMT

The fact that she voted for the war does NOT hurt her chances. What does hurt her chances is that she remains completely hypocritical about the issue.

I'm glad she voted for it. The fact that all the voters still fall for the "Dog ate my homework" is something Obama is trying to count on...

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Jeff D., Allen, TX — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 17:11:07 GMT

Billary Clinton is a pandering, crooked snake-in-the grass just like her hubby that she rode all the way to her present position. She accomplished nothing in her 8-yr attempt at healthcare reform.

For those that think highly of Obama because he voted against the war - you might want to consider how this man has voted on other issues. His voting record is some 80% more liberal than his Democratic party counterparts. That is so liberal even Ted Kennedy is going "whoa!"

You want a Socialist USA? Vote Obama. You want a crook? Vote for Billary. She had lessons from one of the greatest liars and crooks of all time.

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Smart, Kansas City — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 17:19:38 GMT

Why do we continually get distracted by the symptoms (i.e. snippets of comments/behaviors) while failing to see the core problem with our democratic system. Our number one issue to drive change must be addressing the public's demonstrated inability to think critically about issues independently. We have become a society too dependent upon the media and politicians spoon-fed delivery of what is considered "news worthy". A prime example would be the bandwagon of right-wing Christians who rushed to support Bush after he vocalizing his faith. Why, by just saying you’re a Christian do you win over so many voters who choose not to assess his 'Christianity' based on his actions rather than his words. Think we have a similar situation here - actions speak louder than words - just ask the majority of Bush supporters (Christian or not) who have now found themselves no longer supporting this great man who claimed to have been called to his position by God.

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Sierra, San Francisco — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 17:28:05 GMT

How did Hillary do with health care reform ?
Her bungling and incompetence set back hearth care reform for 15 years !!
Thanks to Hillary, we have a crumbling, unfair and dysfunctional health care system.

How well did Hillary do building coalitions for health care reform ?
How well did Hillary do enacting legislation ?
Boy !! Her experience will help her hit the ground (crashing, not running) !!

Hillary, the experienced Washington insider !!

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Kobi — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 17:35:53 GMT

Krista H. there is no need for racism, name mongering and postering. The name is Barack Obama. It does not mean that he is a muslim and even if he is what is wrong with that? Dont be naive and grow up!!!

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

DPR, Chicago, Illinois — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 17:38:53 GMT

What don't so many of you get about this?

You're telling me you want our president to meet with the likes of Hugo Chavez-the guy who called Bush satan and is turning Venezuela into a socialist state or Ahmadinejad-the guy who denies the holocaust happened and if given the button to kill all americans and jews, would press it in a heart beat?

I equate it to trying to turn a Cubs fan into a Sox fan or a Packers fan into a Bears fan.

Most of the radical leaders are so set in their ways it wouldn't matter if God came down and tried talking with them, they STILL wouldn't listen.

As for the war, most people have been COMPLETELY mislead by the media as to WHY we went.

WMD's right?

How many of you even bothered READING the resolution that congress voted on??? I have and while it mentions WMD's, it also mentions MUCH more-simply google "iraq resolution" and educate yourself some. People were being murdered (Kurds) everyday BEFORE we got there and they (Shiite Sunni) will be being murdered AFTER we leave.

Google "the other iraq" and you'll find a place in northern Iraq of peace on prosperity, not the Kurdish death squads that used to be there (the ones Saddam sent to kill Kurds by the hundreds of thousands) Simply google "kurds mass graves" to see what I'm talking about.

Don't believe ANY politician that says they were "mislead" by Bush, it's ALL spelled out in the resolution. The only reason ANY of them say that is political posteuring. The media has done such a great job at brainwashing the masses into believing this whole "illegal" war thing that they know they will loose votes if they say they are pro-war.

Why do you think Obama has such a large following? He's one of the loudest anti-war candidates out there, more then likely to get your vote, not that that is what he believes.

Imagine the instabillity in the Middle East if Saddam invade ANOTHER country (Iran Kuwait) or launched MORE scudz into Israel-did you forget about that? Imagine the price for a gallon of gas when the entire Middle East is at war....

Imagine if we left his terrorist training camps be, imagine if we let him continue to pay Palestinian suicide bombers families' money, imagine if we let him continue to harbor terrorists in his country-What kind of precedent would that send to the rest of the Middle East???

Utter Chaos....

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Lewis, Cincinnati, — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 17:50:43 GMT

lylepink? when has the claim that hillary voted for the war been proved false? She voted for it

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Lewis, Cincinnati, — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 17:55:22 GMT

Has anyone noticed that A LOT of the anti Obama post come from people supposedly from Chicago??? I don't believe for one second that there are that many anti-Obama people who would use this blog to post that are from Chiciago. Sounds like a dirty dirty trick on the part of someone!! hmmm......

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 18:18:41 GMT

DPR - Then why are we not invading Pakistan? Why are we not invading Saudi Arabia? Syria? Countries with much stronger ties to terrorism than Saddam had.

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

C. L. Findley, Ventura, Iowa — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 18:41:50 GMT

Frankly, I am stunned at those of you who continue to look over your shoulders and refer back to SENATOR HRC's war vote, which was made at a defining, and a fragile time in our country's history. Please remember that GWB is the singular "owner" of this war---he bears full and complete responsibility for every facet, bit of info, half-truths, and full out lies. So, that being said, the REAL issue is HOW do we get OUT of Iraq without destabilizing the entire globe?? I am willing to listen to all of the candidates (both D and R) and respect them for their willingness to run for the office when it surely will be merciless, unforgiving, and challenging. I have not made up my mind at this point, but.....
Mr's. Obama, Biden, Richardson, Kucinich, et al have thoughts concerning the issue, but it is HRC who has called the Pentagon's bluff, called for effective summits, and been STRONG enough to not retract her vote, but been willing to accept chastisment in the face of neophyte, and sophmoric comments which only look backward. She is gaining ground by her no non-nonsense clear answers, and ---as people are seeing-- commanding presence, and deserved respect as a US Senator.
And, oh, by the way--She has made it quite clear the SHE is the one running for office, not her husband. For those who are still hung up on HIS past, I ask you..... what does that have to do with the future!?!?!

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Jim, Carbondale, IL — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 19:01:24 GMT

DPR,
Imagine if we actually took steps that would prevent the proliferation of terrorism and anti-U.S. sentiment instead of toppling a contained dictator and doing nothing about real dangers in the world. Sure, Saddam was a brutal dictator, so was Pinochet when we armed him and funded him, so was Saddam when the Reagan administration funded him as well. Iran is a mess because WE toppled a democratically elected leader in 1953 so a dictator who supported our interests could take over. Atrocities happen every day, and we should try to prevent them, but it is unfair to use them as a justification to be in Iraq because by that logic we should also be in Sudan, Burma, Liberia, Haiti, etc. We let bin Laden escape so we could spend our time and energy in Iraq, and for what? Our own miliatary has done studies proving that our choice to go into Iraq has created more terrorists and made us less safe. Terrorists are not naturally born, they are made. Why can't we focus on prventing people from becoming terrorists, instead of fighting aggressive wars of choice that work against our interests? We need to quit trying to control the world and start trying to work as a leader of the world community. That will prevent terrorism, make us safer, and not weaker (I said leader, after all).

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Nate, Boston, MA — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 19:15:56 GMT

Obama's stance really is practically the same thing as Clinton's. However, the way he presents it shows he IS smart and willing to think about foreign policy and diplomacy in a different way than it is normally done. I, for one, am all for it. If you're not for trying a new tactic in foreign policy, and your happy for this country to continue further alienating the people who hate us (and those who support us for that matter, too)in the blind hope that someday they'll see the light and start loving everything we stand, go ahead and get in line behind the woman who seems to be using the same sort of rhetoric as every politician before her...

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Saraphine, Ceder Rapids, Iowa — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 19:19:45 GMT

I wonder if Bill will buy new cigars to use in the oval office if Hillary wins? Yummy!

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Giancarlo, Cambridge, MA — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 19:34:45 GMT

As a Cuban-American I can tell you that Obama is on the money with this.

What has ignoring and not talking to Fidel Castro done for the last 50 years? NOTHING!

If you take away the fact that Hillary Clinton insulted Bush in her remarks, then what she has said is no different than what the Bush administration has repeated time and time again -- hence, Obama is absolutely right in likening her to Bush.

In regards to the Iraq War vote..many of us also made a mistake in supporting Bush on this one. But we have had the intellectual honesty to recognize it as such today. And please, anyone who justifies Clinton for voting the war based on that the resolution itself did not read the words "we are going to war" then is implying that Hillary aside from being incompetent, must have been the only person in Washington that "didn't know" about Bush's intentions to invade Iraq.

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

wrt — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 19:37:02 GMT

The cracks are beginning to show in the Democratic pres candidates already. And they've barely gotton beyond the talking snowman asking them about global warming.

Is that Al Gore I hear warming-up in the wings for the job? I know, I know, don't say "warming" around Al.

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Ronald Hughes, Huntsville, AL — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 19:50:44 GMT

The vote to authorize going to war was not wrong. The president was wrong in how he used that authorization. The 911 bombing fealt just like someone was invading America and anything done to fight against that invasion needed to be done. It was the right thing to do. A wise leader would know how to use that authority which was given: slowly carefully and after exhausting all options. This country voted for Bush though and the power behind the thrown named Chaney also known as 'Shooter'. The war in Iraq would be overwith by now but then America voted for him again. So how in the world can you say that these actions are now Hillary Clinton's fault. The real vote that counted was not for the war but for keeping the sole source for starting and keeping the war going, in the oval office. I don't think Hillary voted for Bush for president.

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Steve, Poulsbo, WA — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:01:15 GMT

Go Obama! Everyone understands there will be preparations before executive level meetings. Obama just comes clean and says he would meet with these leaders. I respect his lack of hedging.

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

er, northville, Michigan — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:39:42 GMT

I think Obama is right - the US need to show leadership through our willingness to engage everybody. How else are we going to really find out what the counterparts in other countries are really thinking.One thing that is missing in our foreign policy is our capacity to really listen - we blew it with Ho Chi Minh, we blew it with Castro, we blew it with Kenyatta, etc. etc. Even our friends know this!

Personally, I am for Edwards - his One Campaign is fresh and effective and I think he is on the right track - we need to look at the condition of poverty in the US - a lot of the lower middle class have slipped - with outsourcing and globalization, more and more folks will be left behind.

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Wale, Milwaukee, WI — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:45:08 GMT

I foresee a Hilary - Obama ticket in the future. All these babbling is just a media stunt. They both worded the same concept differently, and now for the next couple of days they'll have the media paying attention to them.

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:59:49 GMT

Sierra - You give the First Lady an awful lot of credit. She is responsible for all the failures of the health care system we have today? Wow. She was an ADVISOR to the President back then, not a Senator. The fact that you could hold her entirely responsible for the issues our health care system just demonstrates that you are completely biased against her.

Secondly, if the system was so dandy, why then did it need to be fixed back in 1993? Was it already broken? But now I am confused. If it was already broken, how can she be blamed for ruining it?

I'm confused about something else. People keep pointing out that she was just the First Lady, and had no official role in Bill's administration. But if she bears all of the responsibility for the health care troubles because she failed to propose a plan that could get through Congress...that sounds like she was actively participating in the governing process in 1993. So then, by those standards, I guess the 8 years she spent in the White House DO count as political experience, right? You can't have it both ways - either her time in the White House counts as experience or it doesn't. If it doesn't, the health care ordeal is irrelevant, because she was merely the First Lady and not a political operative.

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

alpha omega — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:10:22 GMT

Before we interpret Obama's answer as a lack of political experience, we should ask ourselves the following question:
do we need to be politically experienced to realize that
before a president travels, a lot of groundwork must layed down by diplomats and consorts ? Of course not,
it seems we all know this, and most of us are not politicians. Therefore Obama probably knows this, and
his statements in no way indicate the contrary.
He is simply not stating the obvious while expressing a high level vision of diplomacy.

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

alpha omega — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:11:43 GMT

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

John, Arlington, VA — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 22:21:59 GMT

In the greater scheme of things, both Obama and Hillary said essentially the same thing. The question was long and made reference to the meeting between Anwar Sadat of Egypt, and Menachem Begin, then prime minister of Israel. Egypt had gone to war with Israel in 1967, a war that vaulted then General Arion Sharon to national prominence.

Anyway, Sadat had previously sworn that he'd never meet with an Israeli. But he relented and eventually agreed to meet with Begin. They met at Camp David, during the famous Camp David Talks brokered by Jimmy Carter, and this resulted in a negotiated peace settlement between Israel and Egypt. Israel, as a result of the meeting returned the Sinai Desert to Egypt -- something that political experts (read the mainstream media) had said was next to impossible.

It only happened because Sadat was willing to meet.

That is the background to the question that was posed during the debate. Both Senators Obama and Edwards said that they would meet. It was Hillary who used the typical hedging and qualifiers, etc., of saying that she would not meet during her 1st year. She then went onto national media the following morning and verbally attacked Senator Obama's remark (she conveniently omitted Senator Edwards), and you could see she felt very threatened by Senator Obama and is becoming paranoid.

I don't think it's an accident that Madeleine Albright went out to the media shortly afterwards, and essentially repeated the same remark.

But alas! It's really backfired on her. Senator Obama has shown that he has the political maturity, self-confidence, and belief in his negotiations skills to broker difficult agreements with hostile nations.

When has Hillary ever sat down with conservatives on a really difficult issue and reach a bi-partisan solution?

I can see President Obama solving the Palestinian Mideast Crisis unflinchingly.

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

H P Boston — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 22:42:54 GMT

Carrie, Eastern Iowa...Your post 4:59 pm
OUTSTANDING!

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Emerald, Tacoma, Wash. — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 23:50:57 GMT

First of all Sen. Barack Obama has his major in Poly-Sci with a specialization in Internationl Relations, combine that with his current committe seat on Foreign Relations and he is more aware of what is going on in the world right now than HRC. Speaking of which, Sen. Clinton, just recently in New Hampshire said, "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 don't like. I'm sort of an expert on that. I have consistently urged the president to talk to Iran and to talk to Syria. I think its a sign of strength not weakness."
October 31, 2006 at the Council of Foreign Relations:
"Direct negotiations (with enemy states) are not a sign of weakness; they are a sign of leadership. The Bush Administration's refusal to talk to anyone on the evil side, as some have called i idealistic. I call it dangerously unrealistic."
courtesy of www.topix.net
Let's not forget that she voted to authorize this war without reading the NIE report, and because of that vote, it is now costing us $8 Million dollars a month to Pakistan for their assistance to locate Osama bin Laden, with little results I might add, upwards of $12 Million dollars a month to fund this war and the enourmous debt as a result, a $600 Billion dollar embassy, that we may not even be able to occupy, and the increase in al-Qaeda to pre - 9/11 levels in more than six years. Bust most of all it has cost us our country's standing in the world and even more devastating the loss of more than 3600 men and women, all because she (among others) that didn't bother to question or challenge the presidents intentions. If wea are talking about experience and she wants to use her First Lady status as a means to promote that then she is in real trouble as far as I can see. As first Lady she didn't sit down with foreign leaders and negotiate agreements, I find it even highly unlikely she was even in the same room at the time her husband was in negotiations with those leaders, so what she stood in a reception line and shook hands, that doesn't qualify her as a leader in foreign policy.

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Mark Billingsley, Sacramento, Calif. — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 00:50:35 GMT

This for David from South Carolina:

A thorough digging will show that Obama was against the war from the start. He was Nostradamus-like in seeing the fracture of the country into Shia vs. Sunni vs. Kurd and that we had no plan to get out. He also asked how much the folly was going to cost us. Remember when the neo-cons were staying it would cost no more than $6 billion and that could be repaid with oil money. This past April Hillary was caught on tape rapping Bush for not talking with our enemies. Now she's stand-offish? Flip-flop, flip-flop. There were 23 some odd senators who did not vote for the war and senior Illinois senator Dick Durbin was one of them, so it's pretty safe to assume that if Obama had been a senator at that time he would have stayed true to his conviction and voted along with Durbin against the war.

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Kim Jones Richmond VA — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 00:54:38 GMT

Hillary flip-flopped over this same issue on the debate with Y-Tube and I guess this is her moment to show her lying ways to Iowa early in the election.
On April 22, 2007 she had a croud of 1000 souls she lied and said she would meet with the leaders of foreign countries and use diplomacy. She then chastised the Bush Administration about not doing so.
This took place in Decourah Iowa
We need a truthful candidate. BArack speaks from his heart and soul about the concern of how this country is headed.

She thinks Americans aren't paying attention.
She is WRONG AGAIN.

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Rich/ AZ — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 05:11:37 GMT

America do we want another present Washington Paper Hanger for a President?? These two clowns presently serve and they can't agree on anything ""expect their own self serving agaenda!!!

I want a president!! Not just another Washington Paper hanger to fill the seat as our President!!!!!

I would Vote for Satan before I would """VOTE GENDER""

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 14:12:48 GMT

Emerals - I have a degree in Political Science. I took classes in international relations. I even took a class about the politics of terrorism. Does that mean I am qualified to be president?

Obama takes another shot at Clinton

Folsom, California — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 06:59:39 GMT

The late President, John F. Kennedy, once enjoined our country and its people by these few words:

"Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate."

Senator Obama's response to the question about meeting other foreign leaders, with whom we may not have the friendliest of relations, is clearly in the spirit of what JFK had in mind.

Alot could be accomplished, including unnecessary wars and bilateral hostility that could be avoided, rather than implement a belligerent foreign policy. We saw this type of bilateral engagement work in previous administrations, when leaders engaged each other directly, as Nixon and Kruschev, Reagan and Gorbachev, did.

The import of the respective responses by Senators Obama and Clinton is not to be minimized, because, they underscore the philosophical differences in how each candidate would conduct US foreign policy, if elected the president in 2008. From their responses, it is clear that one candidate is about fundamental change, transformation and renewal, while the other is for the status quo, and a hawk. Another important inference one could draw from the exchanges between these candidates, is that one is able and willing, without hedging his response to questions, while the other startles her position, perhaps, a lack of candor, which most voters would find troubling in a candidate for the presidency of the US.

This type of exchange should be encouraged and closely studied by voters, before they cast their votes. Do not depend on what some journalists write or tell you about each candidate and the issues, because, most of them are not objective in their views. Make up your own mind on each candidate.

Much has been written and talked about the relative experience of each of the candidates. However, one does not gain qualifying experience just by being there, like, living in the White House all those many years. What accomplishments did you achieve -like policy, or social causes like past First Ladies? In addition, what good is experience that lacks good and sound judgment on important policy issues, like authorization to go to war? I would rather choose a candidate that has a record of accomplishment of sound judgment on important policy issues, even if such accomplishment is at the state, or local government level, or other veritable spheres of human endeavor. If we, the voters, judge these candidates by their accomplishments in life, and not just by how many years they have spent in the Senate, or the White House, or who their spouses are, we would find quality candidates and elect an individual with candor, vision and other leadership qualities to save the ship of state.

Ignatius Anyanwu
Folsom, California