Clinton vs. Obama

jerry/corpus christi texas — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:19:26 GMT

I decided to watch Hardball and was interested about the leaders of Obama and Hillary campaigns tear into each other. The Clinton guy that was acting so strange and so afraid of saying anything on O'Reiley the other night really didn't show much passion in his arguments against the Obama guy. Hillary, time to find some people with some fight in them.

Clinton vs. Obama

MK,MO — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:44:05 GMT

"The tussle could be a turning point in the Democratic race, which has seen little direct engagement between the top two candidates"

I am not covinced hillary and obama are the top 2 candidates, edwards popularity is being squelched pretty effectivly by the media, I suspect that in the nation as a whole he is the dem candidate of choise

Clinton vs. Obama

Undecided Independent, Cherrh Hill, NJ — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:46:54 GMT

As a mainstream independent thinking democrat, here's my perspective. Clinton/Wolson got whupped on this scirmish. They called attention to their biggest vulnerability--their own naivete in allowing Bush/Cheney to take us to war. I think Bush=Lite fits well. Part of our problem in the world today is that we aren't talking to the bad guys. Talking to them isn't a sign of weakness. I think the pararellel of Kennedy/Nixon/Reagan efforts to work w/ the other guys gaining world stature--and leading to substantative progress w/ China/USSR is strong w/ the American people. And, two of the three were consdiered popular successful presidents. And Nixon's problems weren't caused by his opening dialogue w/ the bad guys. The Bush theory of only talking to like thinking people is a known failure execpt among the under a rock crowd.

This hurt Hillary and helped Obama.

Clinton vs. Obama

Undecided Independent, Cherrh Hill, NJ — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:47:10 GMT

Clinton vs. Obama

Mike, Raleigh NC — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:58:21 GMT

Who are the bad guys we are not talking to? What progress would you intend to make with them?

Clinton vs. Obama

DB, Allegany NY — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 14:04:42 GMT

The question was will you commit, in the first year of your presidency, to meet without conditions with these world leaders. Obama said yes, Clinton said no, to a meeting in the first year without conditions. Hillary did not say she would NEVER meet, just that she would use ambassadors and envoys to test the waters first. That, folks, is diplomacy.

Clinton vs. Obama

CJ — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 14:05:20 GMT

Syria has been mentioned numerous times. And Mike..ask the candidates that question.

Clinton vs. Obama

Cindy Weinberg — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 14:13:27 GMT

I have just returned from a wonderful trip to Spain and the UK during which I experienced how much the world has changed since I last visited Europe about five years ago. I was struck by the extent to which I felt "at home"; maybe it was the familiar corporate buisinesses, maybe it was how gracious and helpful the people were in the places I visited, maybe the differences in the past were more about time, history and economics than about anything essentially human. This experience made me realize not only in an intellectual way, but in a clear, realistic way, that as an American, my place in the world has shifted, politically, economically and morally. With this shift, our leaders must begin to consider all of the issues of foreign policy very differently than in the past. I am not reassured by politicians who speak about their experience in the world as it was 8 to 16 years ago. I am not confident that those who have lived in the protected environment of privilege and power during the last 16 years have a sense of the world as it truly is. Without the perspective of the world as it is, how can any individual or group of individuals hope to make sound decisions about policies that have national, global and generational consequences. Much of what I saw during my trip reflected the way in which other countries have learned from us, and yet, there was much in what I experienced that taught me how our country is also enriched and even shaped by our global connections. We have no option but to blaze new pathways of communication with all the nations of the world in order to continue to be a pioneering force and a mediating might in the global political arena. We must have leaders who can think creatively about the ways in which those new pathways can be cleared for to access effective solutions of global conflicts.

The recent debate highlighted Barack Obama's ability to forsee the necessity of being in conversation with other countries, yes, even our enemies, to give shape and substance to our future in relation to the world community. Those nations that can solve their problems without costly military conflicts have historically been and will in the future be in the best position to support the health and well-being of its citizens in a world of shrinking resources and increasing challenges.

I believe our country needs a generational leap out of our faulty discourse with the world which will only be possible if we work to elect leaders who have the ability to envision new efforts in every aspect of government and the courage to speak boldly while at the same time, understanding the consequences and responsibilities of their actions and their words. I see these qualities in Barack Obama. I have no doubt that he will be able to move this country forward renewing our most valuable resources, ingenuity and diversity as the challenges of the 21st century continue to present themselves.

I hope as this campaign progresses, Barack Obama will continue to lead the way in helping America to redefine itself as an America that can become even more a beacon of hope for the world by rising out of the ashes of a crippling war, bigotry, poverty, cynicism, and clever rhetoric to achieve a greatness that will establish the foundations for a thriving America in the 21st century.

Clinton vs. Obama

FL — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 14:19:29 GMT

"Who are the bad guys we are not talking to? What progress would you intend to make with them?"

Iran and Syria. We need to engage with them to stabilize Iraq. The “bury your head in the sand” kind of diplomacy just doesn’t work.

Clinton vs. Obama

Bill Traxler, Pinconning, Michigan — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 14:26:10 GMT

I think the real tragedy, is that this event will weaken the Democratic ticket in 2008. I was hoping of a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinto ticket. This would have been a powerful ticket but now it will most likely not happen.

Clinton vs. Obama

Yiannis, Baltimore, MD — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 14:31:54 GMT

I don't understand how replying to being called naive, irresponsible and silly is interfering with the politics of hope.

And I don't think what Clinton said was particularly malicious either.

Look there's a genuine difference of opinion. At least we have THAT in the democratic field.

Like Clinton said earlier this year, the repugs are run like a plantation

Clinton vs. Obama

Lyn, MD — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 14:36:58 GMT

DB,, I see you are apart of the Clinton/Karl Rove playbook. That ship won't sail this time. The question was not will you Committ it was will you be WILLING. If they want to have the "Bush-Lite "label dropped using Karl Rove strategies won't help.

Good try though...truly Bush-lite !!!

Clinton vs. Obama

jd, Dallas, Texas — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 14:49:11 GMT

This is argument has been blown way out of proportion. The question was "Would you promise to meet with leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, and North Korea without preconditions in the first year." It was a very specific question and Hillary hammered it. She said she wouldn't promise to meet with these leaders, but she would promise to pursue vigorous diplomatic efforts and then move forward from there. There is no change in position. She never promised not to pursue diplomacy and talk with these leaders; she never even promised not to meet with these leaders. The question was very specific and Clinton was right to not make promises. It is irresponsible to jump into a meeting if you don't know the intentions or what you are going to accomplish. Her words are being distorted by the Obama camp. She even elaborated on her diplomatic intentions by saying that she would use high-level presidential envoys to test the water andhelp ease the tension. Isn't that what ambassadors on behalf of the US are used for?? Easing the tension and laying the foundation down for high-level talks between presidents. That type of diplomacy certainly isn't Bush-Cheney like. It's engaging in responsible diplomacy that gets things accomplished. I certainly don't want this country to be embarrased anymore than it has. Then, Obama's retalliation about it was irresponsible to get into this war, etc. was just immature and diverted attention away from the real question. Just the fact that Obama had to elaborate upon his response oozed of inexperience. Point blank, Hillary has experience in intense diplomacy. Obama does not. Who would you trust with diplomatic efforts?

Clinton vs. Obama

Al Coker, Union Grove WI — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 14:49:24 GMT

Lets get Iran's Ahmadinejad and Syria's al-Assad in the White House Rose Garden pronto. Get them signing some papers to make it all better.

Worked with Arafat.

Clinton vs. Obama

Alvin Simon — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 14:52:06 GMT

Undecided Independent - please decide, and make up your mind. Times-a-wasting.

Clinton vs. Obama

AL-MALIKI THE WACKI IRAQI — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 14:54:22 GMT

WE DO NOT NEED THE USA, HOWEVER WERE GOING TO TAKE A 3 WEEK VACATION, SO STICK AROUND.

Clinton vs. Obama

Gene Singel — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 14:58:21 GMT

Bush - Cheney light is right on. Hillary voted for their war, now she wants to follow their policy of refusing to enter into dialogue with our critics. In the first year of a Democratic Presidency we better learn that to maintain the strength of our democracy we have to listen to others. I don't know if I'm for Obama yet, but I certainly can't vote for Hillary now.

Clinton vs. Obama

lyn — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:08:43 GMT

Yiannis, I have no problem with honest debate or differences. I believe most people don't. What I think you see most Obama supporters reacting to is the Hillary Bush/Rove style tactics.

Examples were very evident on Hardball last night with her spokesperson trying to substitute the word "commit" for "willing", like Db above. Trying to imply that Obama had already agreed to meet with them, thereby breaking the law. He was smacked down on that one bad. Then there was the race card...Jews against Muslims because of Obama's name ( which is not MUSLIM)..Chris called him on that one too!!

The fallout maybe the only person that would ever be acceptable to an Obama supporter IF he did not win would be ABC (Anybody but Clinton). Reality is that it was probably almost there anyway.

Clinton vs. Obama

juan,ft lauderdale,fl — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:10:09 GMT

Cindy Weinberg-Thanks for your post. I have visited Europe twice in the last 5 years and was struck by our much they admire Americans but despise the Bush administration as nothing more than pure arrogance.

Clinton vs. Obama

Sierra, San Francisco — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:17:28 GMT

I saw Hardball yesterday, too. That Wolfson is a complete jerk. Is it any surprise he works for Hillary ?
The point came up that Obama opposed the Iraq war in 2002 when he was running for the Senate.

The only explanation Wolfson could come up with for Hillary's vote supporting the war was that public opinion was 80% for the war !!

So instead of reading the National Intelligence Estimate to see if the war was winnable, what the consequences of war could be, or if the war was justified.... Hillary was reading the polls, instead.

Hillary was completely irresponsible in supporting the war.
She only began to oppose the war when public opinion turned against the war.

Is that leadership on Hillary's part ?
No, that's political opportunism !!

Clinton vs. Obama

Jen — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:20:32 GMT

Obama didn't violate the "politics of hope" doctrine. This is a race for the presidency. He's ALLOWED to defend himself against attacks from competitors. The public would think he's an idiotic WUSS if he DIDN'T defend himself. If he's not strong enough to defend himself against Hillary Clinton (a WOMAN), how the hell is he going to stand up to sadistic world dictators?! It's not whether he responds, but HOW that determines whether he has violated his "high level politics" doctrine. He has NOT. Clinton's rationale is that Obama can't defend himself and if he does, he's violating his pledge to play clean. She's initiating attacks against her opponents, then saying that they're not allowed to respond or THEY are playing dirty politics. People see through it. Hillary is just jealous because the CNN and Fox News focus groups for the YouTUBE debate voted that Obama WON the debate. She's jealous.

Clinton vs. Obama

HMT — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:20:33 GMT

glad to see the dems getting some debate practice in-----it will go well against the republicans while they defend the policies of the failed Bush administration

Clinton vs. Obama

eNews Reference Dover, NH — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:21:23 GMT

I think they're going to turn the whole things around and make-up by early next week. http://www.enewsreference.com

Clinton vs. Obama

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:31:22 GMT

If Hillary was completely irresponsible in supporting the war, so were the majority of Congress and the majority of Americans.

Clinton vs. Obama

NYC — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:40:22 GMT

Dont talk to your enemy Ms Clinton,just bomb these fools, we have been doing it in Faluja, how is that.

Clinton vs. Obama

CommunityDemocrat — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:40:31 GMT

Winston Churchill said, Jaw jaw beats war war.
This is a win win for the insurgent and a mixed bag for the front runner. He get to use words like strength, change and confidence, courage and engagement, rising to meet the hope and challenges of the world. The opposites are left with fear and caution, process and the high privilege of talking to the great and august American President. Its very interesting.

Clinton vs. Obama

lamenting, anguish, popula — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:42:17 GMT

I find it interesting that the most naive comments seem to come from those supporting Obama. I'm no fan of Hillary, but on pure policy she has my man Obama on the ropes. He doesn't know how to properly engage with these types of countries and, very unfortunately, he is showing it.

Clinton vs. Obama

John Doe, Seattle, Wash — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:43:49 GMT

This pretty much sums up the argument...Quite insightful

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyqAR4lJCmw

Clinton vs. Obama

ENL, Phoenix — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:53:25 GMT

Carrie, Congress and Hillary had many more facts and resources when making their decision in supporting the war than did the majority of Americans. Unfortunately, Americans major source of information is the media which played on our immense patriotism after 9/11 to frame the war as a necessary retaliation and hid the true Bush agenda from the public.

Clinton vs. Obama

lamenting, anguish, popula — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:56:22 GMT

John Doe, what are you saying, Obama should personally meet with leaders of these types of countries in his FIRST year? I love Obama, but you are off your nut! I'm fumed that he blew this so bad. Further, you are making our guy look worse by taking sound bytes and using them in the same way Limbaugh would. Obama and Clinton should drop this fight though, because I don't want the Republicans gaining ground on either of them over this. Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama 2008!

Clinton vs. Obama

naunced — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:57:04 GMT

Barack had to respond; he had no choice. Hillary has learned a lesson because it hurt her more than him. Maybe they will take Edwards' advice and concentrate on the issues and the Republicans

Clinton vs. Obama

lyn, MD — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:58:50 GMT

Carrie, The majority in congress or American People aren't running for PRESIDENT and if they were they should be held accountable too and their judgement challenged. Going with the flow is a bad arguement. Find another.

Clinton vs. Obama

Vee, San Diego, CA — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:08:33 GMT

Since when defending yourself from attacks become "politic as usual"? Just because Obama is fresh, does that mean he has to just zip his mouth & lay still when being punched? Hillary Clinton attacked him first, she's the one who professed unwillingness to meet with country leaders whom, just few months prior, she said she will. She's the one who's the next morning went on the attack saying Obama's "irresponsible & naive". Who went on with an attack? HILLARY DID! Now that he's responding, pointing out the facts of her inconsistencies, the media calls him playing politic as usual? Hillary has the nerve calling Obama irresponsible while she's the one who voted for the war, sending our men and women to sacrifice their lives & families, without even bother to read the necessary important reports involving the Iraq war. She's the one who didn't read the NIE report, she's the one who voted for the war trusting BUSH to run it without reading the NIE report, and she has the nerve to call Obama "irresponsible"?

I guess only HILLARY is given permission by the media to do all the pointings. God forbid when others start questioning & pointing out her inconsistencies. How embarrassing especially MSNBC has those proofs in its possession. All you have to do just check Keith Olbermann interview w/ Clinton, and there you have it! One of dozen of proofs of Clinton's complete opposite position from the one she held on the last debate. And there plenty more of those laying around.

Ck, ck, ck.... to think people won't notice...

Clinton vs. Obama

CJ — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:13:36 GMT

I think it was overblown too..but watching Hardball yesterday I couldn't help but think how much Wolfson often sounded like the Republican mouth pieces that come on that show. He even blasted one of Obama's districts as being 'liberal' so he wasn't under much pressure to vote against the war. It was kind of startling.

Clinton vs. Obama

nuanced — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:16:40 GMT

The main reason "real" politicians don't want to talk and meet with unpopular leaders of other countries is that they don't want the photo of them smiling and shaking hands with the dastard to be used by their political opponents in the next election. For example there are photos of: Rumsfeld shaking hands and smiling with Saddam Hussein, HW Bush with Noriega, Kissinger with Pinochet, Johnson with Marcos, Nixon with Mao, Reagan with Michael Jackson, Hillary with the pope.

Clinton vs. Obama

Yiannis, Baltimore, MD — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:22:29 GMT

Lyn, I am an Obama supporter and agree with him on the issue but at least we are having a disagreement...

Carrie,
The majority of the American people didn't have the information, the press didn't ask the right question.

But Hillary knew the evidence was lacking and voted for the Iraq war out of political calculation. So did Edwards.

Why did Wesley Clark the former Supreme Allied Commander call Iraq a war of choice back in 02? Hillary voted to give W a blank check. Deal with that reality. Edwards has dealt with it, to his credit. Now it's Hillary's turn to apologize.

Clinton vs. Obama

Lewis, Cincinnati, Ohio — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:47:15 GMT

Carrie, You seem to be supporting the idea that since everyone else thought the war was OK---it was OK that Hilllary thought is was too. That's incorrect!!! 23 senators did not think it was OK to go to war in Iraq. Why did Hillary Clinton?? Could it be that she wanted to run for president one day???? That's simply put is NOT LEADERSHIP!!!!

Clinton vs. Obama

lamenting, anguish, popula — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:52:45 GMT

nuanced - You hit it on the head better than anybody, and, unfortunately, Hillary actually needs to be given credit for admitting that fact during the debate.

Clinton vs. Obama

lamenting, anguish, popula — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:53:53 GMT

Geez, I'm sounding like a Hillary supporter. :(

Clinton vs. Obama

kak — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:55:53 GMT

Have any of you guys seen this vidoe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyqAR4lJCmw&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Emydd%2Ecom%2Fstory%2F2007%2F7%2F26%2F16522%2F3938

Clinton vs. Obama

Giancarlo, Cambridge, MA — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:03:33 GMT

Obama scores...BIG

The media pundits are missing the big picture here and Americans are getting it. The point is not who gave the most polished foreign policy answer. Most Americans are not foreign policy gurus. Sen. Clinton gave a classic Foreign Policy 101 textbook answer that would have made her college professors proud, while Obama defied conventional wisdom. In a change election, where most Americans are rejecting exactly that same kind of wisdom that took us to war with Iraq, the latter wins.

As a Cuban-American, I can tell you that ignoring Fidel Castro for 50 years has not accomplished a damn thing. Clinton talks about not being "propaganda tools" for dictators but ignoring them has been their greatest propaganda tool EVER.

Obama's response may not have been as polished or politically calculated as Clinton -- but voters can sense that he is proposing genuine change and Clinton sounds too much like "Bush-Cheney Lite."

Obama has my vote.

Clinton vs. Obama

Greg Welton, Miami, FL — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:10:33 GMT

The ISSUE is and has been throughout recorded history
JUDGMENT.
Thousands had/have/will have experience; it is how you
weigh that experience (your's and the multitude of advisors) with JUDGMENT and make the proper intelligent decision for the short, medium and long
term. North Korea (after 50 years to site just one
example)could have been different with one on one contact. Take a lesson from Sarkozy.
Obama is crazy to get in a p---ing contest; he
should just EMPHASIZE his proven Judgment (extrapolating it to all the other fields) - if you have got it you have got it - and he will be the next President of the United States.
Rein in the same o same o consultants.

Clinton vs. Obama

randall cox, greenville, sc — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:12:10 GMT

Barack has Hillary pinned in the corner on this one, friends. Obama lokks bold and unafraid and straightforward and progressive, whereas Hillary looks like... well, Bush Lite.

Wolfson seemed on the verge of tears on Hardball. Axelord was clearly in the 'ol catbird seat yesterday.

Clinton vs. Obama

nuanced — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:16:54 GMT

Nice video. It make it very clear to me that it was foolish for Hillary to throw that stone when she was living in a glass house on that issue. PS -- I am not anti-Hillary, I just want her to stop making silly mistakes that will hurt her later if she has to run against a Republican.

Clinton vs. Obama

Joe, Minneapolis MN — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:19:01 GMT

If you're a leader, you lead good and bad guys and that means, you means you'll have to find away to deal with bad guys -i.e talking and meeting them. Sturbonness only makes things worse -and it makes Hillary worse as Obama stands high intellectually. You don't make peace with "just good People", you mantain it as you make peace with bad guys. You can act tough and end up weak unfortunately! So Barack Obama has a heart and not just meanness!

Clinton vs. Obama

Sierra, San Francisco — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:26:35 GMT

Carrie:
So you agree that Hillary was irresponsible for supporting the war ?
That's progress.
Wasn't she also naive in believing that Bush wouldn't invade Iraq unless it was justified ?
Wasn't she naive to put her trust in Bush ?

I've got a bridge I'd love to sell her !!
It's the Golden Gate and it's world famous !!
Let's get in touch !!

Clinton vs. Obama

Tiffany, Seattle, WA — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:28:29 GMT

” Would you be willing to, in the first year of your presidency, without precondition, in Washington or anywhere else, agree to meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?”

There is no talk of promising to meet all five leaders in his first year. Clinton was the one that tried to twist Obama's words, change the question and then attacked him by calling him naive and inexperienced. Those are Bush-Cheney lite tactics. It is not silly to point that out. She is expecting the voters to be dumb enough to fall for it.

Clinton vs. Obama

ATL J, Duluth, GA — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:34:48 GMT

I think what is shocking are Americans who are so lazy to check their facts and vote for soundbites and not the truth then start compalining that the country is going down the drain.

Say what you will about Obama but do try to say the truth. Frankly Clinton has only shown her true colors by using Rove tactics to distort what the question on foreign policy was and Obama's answer. The question which can be read on CNN transcript states "are you willing to etc? Willing not committed, I'm British and sorry to say find it really amusing that a good number of Americans have no clue about the nuances of the english language, go theck a thesaurus or google the words 'willing and 'commit' and you'll see 2 different meanings.

I think the joke is on any Hillary fan or independent who cannot see the difference and the fact that this controversy only exists in Hillary's mind and the fact that she is smart enough to know that the media and a sizable part of the public are quite gullible and not just intelligent enough to know when they are being led by their noses.

The fact is 23 senators voted against war, Hillary didn't even bother to read NIE report because she was more cold and calculating about her ambition to become president at the expense of human beings who are dead and dying.

If anyone of you is blinded by love for Hillary to this fact, then Lord help this country. You tell me how would you feel if you lost a son, brother, loved one and found out that someone who voted for them to be sent to their death didn't even lose any sleep studying/investigating the whole facts. Some of you say big deal she voted blah blah blah. I say why don't you get off your backside and go fight in Iraq right now, so easy to be an armchair pundit while decent men and women are dying, where is your humanity and compassion? War is a terrible thing but sometimes for our safety has to be fought like WWII but this war is something else. Well what can you expect from a nation were 40% of its population still believes that Sadaam (though a despot) was directly behind 9/11.

Hillary, Bush, corporate America and the media are playing majority of you for fools and from an outsider trust me when I say they are clearly succeeding

Clinton vs. Obama

Larry, Baltimore, MD — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:39:20 GMT

Non-engagement doesn't work. We have 50 years of failed foriegn policy in Cuba and North korea as proof that non-engagement doesn't work.

Rogue countries we have engaged directly like China, the USSR, and Libya have made far more progress than the stagnant nations we choose to ignore as if it will advance our policies.

Obama is right, Bush is wrong, and Hillary has once again danced around the question...

Clinton vs. Obama

The 12th Imam — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:41:54 GMT

Neither one of them can keep me from popping out of the well.

Clinton vs. Obama

Ken "take the best leave the rest "O — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:54:47 GMT

um hillary up in every poll get used to saying MS. PRESIDENT its the way it is .Obama edwards whoever take whatever shot you want the alternitive isnt you its rudy or fred or whatever wife cheater they can find so get on board but unless your a republican in thier pocket like ralph nader was in 2000 you will want hillary so wacth out how ugly you want to get.

Clinton vs. Obama

Kelly (from Pittsburgh) — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 18:05:04 GMT

These divisive comments are the true Hillary Clinton. The "we're all Democrats with similar positions" was a ploy by her campaign staff. I am so glad she showed her true colors, because all of the democratic candidates have a responsibility to point out her many faults as a candidate. They need to draw distinctions and compete for this nomination. One thing that the Republicans always succeed in doing better than the Democrats, is considering who is electable. Right now they don't have one good candidate, but they all will have an excellent shot if Hillary is the nominee. Democrats need to start talking about this problem.

The only reason that Hillary is ahead in the polls now, is because she has a lot of support from the uneducated and uninformed. The people who don't watch debates and are answering polls based on name recognition. That's why polls from this point in elections have been so off the mark. But the media is trying to use them to say that she is the inevitable winner. We can't let them get away with it.

Although I am not a Hillary supporter, I wouldn't say that I think she will never meet with these countries leaders (i.e. Bush). But she deserves the Bush-Lite comparison. Why? Because she wants pre-conditions. That was at the heart of this question. And her response shows she has no plans to depart from the typical process of using the meeting as a bargaining chip. Using the meeting as leverage for concessions is a Bush policy/policy of the past. This comes from her (and many past presidents wanting to keep up appearances). They have the meeting after their "envoys" have already reached the agreement. Obama's saying he is going to take more responsibility than that. Because of our current foreign relations, we need bolder leadership. That is not naivety, it is "Audacity".

Clinton vs. Obama

Ken "dont hate her just disagree"O — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 18:08:35 GMT

lets not work together and fight amongst ourselves democrats.Um if nader had worked with al gore he might have been the head of the EPA or FDA but no his ego told him your going to win the high office of the presidency,what a pipe dream.EGO EGO cant be second fiddle eh?maybe macain putting the country ahead of him self and being kerrys vice president,EGO EGO,so come on kids there isnt something that obama can leverage for to help the people he really wants to help or is it EGO EGO EGO,Hillary has been ravaged by the right itss her fight to lose get used to it or wreck your chances with a mean spirited right wing style attack (send out your proxys)it is up to you and your true ideals .Im not saying obama shouldnt try but what do you want to accomplish or is it what you wanted to accomplish that matters.REALITY has to set in so when it dose i hope you dont hate hilliary and can still vote for her or get used to 4 more years ,bush might not be running but his policies and are.

Clinton vs. Obama

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 18:37:48 GMT

Lewis - So all 77 Senators who voted for the resolution want to run for president? Or just the 29 Democrats? And let's see - if they thought a "yes" vote would help them get elected, then wouldn't that mean that the majority of Americans would be in favor of the invasion? Oh, but that's right...we don't think about what the people wanted when it doesn't support our position.

Sierra - Officially done bickering back and forth with you. You're not going to change my mind. You seem to think I am some silly little twit you doesn't know jack about politics. You're wrong. Have a lovely day.

Clinton vs. Obama

Sierra, San Francisco — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 18:41:57 GMT

Csrrie:
A MAJORITY of CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS voted NO TO WAR !! A majority of Congressional Democrats voted AGAINST the IRAQ WAR !!

Hillary keeps getting conned all the time by Bush and Cheney and McCain and Romney.
She should stop asking them for advice.

Hillary should start listening to REAL DEMOCRATS like Ted Kennedy and Dick Durbin (and yes!!) Barak Obama!!

There's no shame.
She should just start asking them questions about America's foreign policy.
I'm CERTAIN that Kennedy and Durbin and Obama will help her understand foreign policy.

She's just gotta ask for help, Carrie !!
Foreign relations are REAL complicated !!

(I'm keeping fingers crossed for Hillary)

Clinton vs. Obama

Jessica, WI — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 18:51:00 GMT

I am from Wisconsin and very proud to have Russ Feingold as a Senator. I found Obama's answer right on and very refreshing! It is unusual to get a straightforward answer as they are usually like Hillary's. How about a Obama/Feingold ticket?

Clinton vs. Obama

BSD, Raleigh, NC — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 19:03:29 GMT

"Obama is right, Bush is wrong, and Hillary has once again danced around the question..."

Yes! And, the Question was... in the "SPIRIT" of "BOLD leadership" would you be "Willing" to meet with..."

The question did NOT contain the word "promise"... that is Hillary's spin.

The world is changing and we need someone who understands this change and who is WILLING to be bold. I Like that Obama is openminded and not afraid to move forward. Not for one moment do I believe he would do this irresponsibly! I trust Obama's judgement on this completely!

Clinton vs. Obama

Kelly (from Pittsburgh) — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 19:05:14 GMT

Ken-
First of all, it was Hillary who attacked Obama not the other way around. She did so, because she knows she doesn't have this race won. Don't believe everything you hear in the press or see in your dreams. This nominating process needs to get its hands a little dirty, because if not, we will be having another Republican buffoon in the White House. Trust me, the Republicans are relishing the opportunity to clobber her and will have plenty of their own ammunition.

As far as I'm concerned, a Hillary presidency isn't that much better than what we have got. She's part of the pro-corporate establishment, just like Bush. I want real changes, real progress and not business as usual. That’s the kind of experience she brings to the table. Bush has been a disaster, but it wasn’t so great in the Clinton era. Bill’s presidency has been helped by the comparison, but there were lots of problems that couldn’t be solved due to partisanship. Hilary inspires partisan politics, and doesn’t even have the leadership skills that her husband does. So please don't try to convince her detractors that they shouldn't speak out and demand the changes that they want. It is our right as Americans. We aren't un-Democratic, we just want someone better. She needs to face her critics and earn the nomination, not just rely on her last name.

Clinton vs. Obama

lyn, MD — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 19:05:21 GMT

Ken...so does that mean that Hillary aka Bush-Lite can , say whatever she wants about people. There are many who believe with her it still is 4 more years, just "BUSH -LITE".

Clinton vs. Obama

nuanced — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 19:15:33 GMT

Jessica, WI -- You have a right to be proud of Russ Feingold. I would vote for him without question. Even though I am from another state I have sent him contributions -- you gotta hold on to the good ones when you find them.

Clinton vs. Obama

S. Strand, Redondo Beach, CA — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 19:20:01 GMT

John F. Kennedy, as a very young and new president, had to deal with what we now know put us on the brink of an all out nuclear holocaust. His good judgment and wisdom prevailed, when his advisers and Joint Chiefs ALL recommended using nuclear bombs against Cuba for having the Soviet missiles there.

What did President Kennedy do? He went against the prevailing wisdom of the all Joint Chiefs and instead opted for a blockade. THAT is the kind of leadership and wisdom we can expect from Barack Obama.

Hillary, during the run up to the war, based her war vote partly on public opinion. Obama, in contrast, went against public opinion and, under great criticism and being called unpatriotic, he spoke out vehemently against the war. Then, after Congress and this president started this war of choice, Obama did everything he could, as a U.S. Senator, to support our troops, including focusing on their care when they return home.

He has shown leadership, forthrightness and wisdom all along. !Viva Obama!

Clinton vs. Obama

Orlando, Houston Texas — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 19:28:35 GMT

I am watching this process very closely and torn between two people I like, but if I had to vote today, it would be for Obama. The thing is, we do not need someone who will say the right things to say to get elected. We need a president that is dynamic and one who thinks in real time. We need one with intuition enough to know regardless of lies when and when not to burn up hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American lives.

But bigger than anything though, America is in a tight spot internationally and as much as I love Bill and Hill, I think Obama is what’s needed. I am very concerned that Hillary is old news and part of the old problem. The main reason why I am impressed with Obama came out in his direct response. We need a diplomat who is also strong on defense and not someone who will continue to fan the flames and sound arrogant. No more cowboy tricks please. Again, I like Hillary, but I am not looking for someone to like. I am looking or the person to turn America around and to begin the process of healing us on the international front. That…would be Obama.

Clinton vs. Obama

lamenting, anguish, popula — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 19:50:05 GMT

I think this blog is indicative of Hillary's biggest problem, her disapproval rating. People seem to love her or hate her. Now no-one twist my words here because I am only making the comparison in this narrow aspect: People seemed to either love or hate Reagan as well. Bill Clinton in his early years suffered from this problem, but overcame it. The thing that I like about Obama is that he is likable. Being a charming person can go a long way. Look at Bill Clinton.

With all that said,I want this piss1ng contest over since one of them is going to be running for president (maybe Edwards)and I don't want any of the Republican wakos winning. I'm not anti-Republican, but their field is weird.

Clinton vs. Obama

Republican Forever — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 20:36:35 GMT

Jessica/ How about a Obama/Feingold ticket?

I'd be okay with that, but probably for different reasons then you.

Clinton vs. Obama

ken fiallos, tampa, fl — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 20:50:04 GMT

If Clinton is so wizen foreign policy wise why did she fail to read all the intelligence briefings before voting for the War? She is nothing more than a finger wetting corporate d*ck sucking jellocrat.

Clinton vs. Obama

Mark Garrity, Downers Grove, Illinois — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 20:54:34 GMT

Now we have Romney and McCain siding with Hillary.
You're never going to win hearts and minds if you're unwilling to talk to those who disagree with us. I have no idea why Romney thinks as Hillary apparently does that we need to continue George Bush's "kiss my ring or kiss off" foreign policy when the last 7 years has proven it doesn't work. John McCain who has spent this year all but destroying his own candidacy has decided to chime in on the side of sneering at the rest of the world.

Romney is unqualified to be president for a whole host of reasons. McCain's own campaign staff is abandoning his sinking ship on an almost daily basis.

It's sad to see Hillary who is otherwise a commendable candidate is as stubbornly off on the wrong foreign policy track as these guys and President Bush. We can't bomb everybody. The sooner they understand that in Washington the better off we'll all be.

Clinton vs. Obama

Iris, Philadelphia — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 21:18:34 GMT

The video recommended earlier, shows Hillary to be a hypocrite, who previously held a position similar to Obama's and expressed it on national TV, more than once. Hillary and her fraudulent sanctimony are distressingly business-as-usual.

Clinton vs. Obama

Jeff Meuse — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 21:46:57 GMT

I don't get it, what does Bush-Lite mean?

Clinton vs. Obama

Stephen Gerard, New York, NY — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 00:27:29 GMT

Mr. Obama achieved something that Mrs. Clinton and others could not have done on their own: he set back his own campaign and showed himself to be way out of his depth when it comes to handling foreign policy. I liked Mr. Obama prior to the most recent debate. Now, I only feel sorry for him. I don't even want him as Vice President. He truly needs much more experience, not only in politics, but in life.

Clinton vs. Obama

Mary Anne, Pound Ridge, NY — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 01:55:12 GMT

What I fail to understand is why the media continues to push Hillary and insist she has the nomination all wrapped up. Just read all these messages regarding who said what at the debate. Frankly, I think the pundits are just plain WRONG. We all want change - young and older Americans alike. Obama represents a much needed change - he's bright, inspiring and will do an excellent job. Frankly, his background and experience provides a greater understanding of our country, its problems and its hopes. Being First Lady and serving one term in the Sendate doesn't qualify one for the presidency. She's a good study - but displays rigidity and inflexibility. Where would she be without Bill???

Clinton vs. Obama

CENTREVILLE — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 02:11:38 GMT

obama is wrong and clinton is correct , no need to run to other leaders / countires in the first year , clinotn stand is wise.

Clinton vs. Obama

mike, nyc, ny — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 04:37:39 GMT

For anyone who cares to look it up, Hillary Clinton voted against the Levin Amendment to the Iraq War Authorization that would have required President Bush to conduct vigorous diplomacy at the UN and would have required Bush to come back to Congress for an additional authorization to unilaterally invade Iraq. Saying, "My vote was a vote for strong diplomacy," has become a staple of Hillary's campaign stump speech, but given her voting record it it quite obvious that she is not being honest. You can't vote against the amendment requiring diplomacy and then claim you voted for diplomacy.

Clinton vs. Obama

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 14:43:49 GMT

Jeff - Bush-Lite is a reference to what a lot of us (here at least) have noticed for a while, and that's similarities between Clinton and Bush.

In a more specific context, it means continuing the Bush approach to foreign policy in terms of only talking with nations who already agree with us. While Clinton isn't saying that, she is saying she wouldn't talk to the president of Iran because he doesn't believe the Holocaust happened. So that's the Lite part.

But it speaks to other, broader similarities.

The insular nature of both, the reluctance to engage in a true exchange with media, the desire to gloss over details and leave things more ambiguous (and then when pressed on that, to respond its old and his been discussed long ago), the willingness to go dirty early (and that is dirty rather than just negative), the questions about whether either believes in anything other than political expediency...

I think about a month ago I started noting those comparisons here, before I ever imagined Obama would tap into it.

Clinton vs. Obama

POLpursun — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 23:41:52 GMT

To put it succinctly, it seems paradoxical that the "experience", conventional wisdom and status quo thinking which produced the sequence of events which culminated in the Iraq fiasco is successful as an element of qualification for POTUS. I refer people to "Buying The War", a Bill Moyers Journal program. If this does not signal a need for significant change away from the conventional wisdom, it is difficult to fathom what will. It also points to the necessity for openness and the judgement to hold power to account, particularly when it is unpopular, and not facilitate the insidious and malefic exploitation of tragedy and fear to pursue disastrous undertakings.

Clinton would be the status quo. Now, as for Obama, if he were to become POTUS, then that is what he will be. Under those conditions I trust that his actions would portray the humility, none other than GWB talked about and not the arrogance he displayed.

Remember: According to the conventional wisdom, Barbara Lee was demonized as a traitor. But I suppose that the lady was not at that moment thinking about her political ambitions. I suppose (my presumption) that there were more important things such as asking that the one who, indisputably, could destroy whomever it wished, whenever it wished, ensure that revenge not be the basis for policy for the world's lone super power, notwithstanding that self-defense and appropriately responding to being attacked are absolutely legitimate.