Clinton challenges Obama on foreign policy, military

Hillary,

You voted for the pre-emptive war on Iraq and then you followed up that blunder by voting Yes with John McCain/Bush on a possible attack of Iran.

This case is closed..

YOU LOSE!

On "This Week," Sen. Joe Biden said Obama was right about his war vote, right about striking Pakistan though Hillary said it was naive, noted that striking Pakistan is U.S. policy, and said that talking with Cuba and other enemies with preparation was the right course.

In case you doubt Biden's credentials, just look it up. We struck Pakistan, took out al Qaeda's # 4, and Hillary didn't say "boo."

Clinton Challenges Obama on
Foreign Policy!!!Yeh Right,She is the one who gave President
Bush, Blank Check to invade
Iraq.

Sen. Clinton is the best qualified candidate for leading this nation. Experience IS important. We cannot hand over this major responsibility to someone who has to rely on on-the-job training. WAKE up people. Vote for Sen. Hillary Clinton.

I think Hillaryis the best choice we have. I tis time for the American women now.

I love when Senator Clinton insists if she knew then what she knows now, she would have voted differently. I *knew* then what she knows now.

If she ends up the Dem nominee I'll vote for her, but frankly I'd rather not. She's slightly better than Endless War McCain.

read today's news - look at HilLIARy's videos over the weekend -- HilLIARy now wants McCain to win if she can't get the democratic nomination - think about it

that way she will be frontrunner for the democratic nomination in 2012 (her last shot at the presidency) and obama will be branded/tainted as a loser

the clintons think this is all about the clintons - pure and simple

So Hillary would let the men who killed 3000 Americans enjoy the comfort of arbitrary ally while authorizing invading Iraq? That's like getting a black eye while shadow boxing!

HRC's campaign is growing more desperate by the hour.Who's advising that witch?
She has no foreign policy credibility whatsoever. Didn't she vote for the disastrous Iraq war without reading Bush's intentions?

Ha! Take that, Obama!

CLINTON '08!

Barry Obama will certainly lose this argument since all he has is his mouth. He will not be able to articulate an original thought and better yet, will offer nothing more than broad generalizations.
We need someone who takes actions, not talks about it.
We need someone with experience, not without it.
We need someone who does not flip flop.

Barry aint that person.

Well Obama is extremely unqualified, but so is the Queen B. She has no foreign oilicy experience and when in the White House she showed disdain toward members of the military.
Overall, the Democratic party is a complete and utter farce.

Obama is a phony and Nader is the best and here is why:

Over the past few months, we’ve heard a lot of rhetoric about change, hope, courage and experience from Barack Obama and John McCain.

But what about the facts on the ground?

Take a moment to test your civics knowledge in this election year.

Of the following Presidential candidates – Ralph Nader, Barak Obama and John McCain – which one supports a single payer, Canadian style, free choice, Medicare for all health care system?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Which one supports solar energy and would take nuclear power off the table?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Which one would cut the huge bloated wasteful military budget?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Which one would reverse U.S. Middle East policy in Israel/Palestine, Iraq and Iran?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Which one would launch an aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Who has consistently supported the Palestinian right to nationhood and peaceful settlement?

Answer: Ralph Nader
(Obama has flip-flopped and has now been bought off by the Israel lobby)

Who has never been in cahoots with the likes of Exelon corp. or Rezko?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Who has spent his entire life working for the common people like you and me and has written books to advance the rights of consumers?

Answer: Ralph Nader
(Obama wrote his books about himself while Nader was looking out for us.)

Who has been direct about proclaiming that Bush is a war criminal?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Which candidate has opposed all wars, every time?

Answer: Ralph Nader
(Obama supports bombing Pakistan and war against Afghanistan)

Some claim that having a racial minority as president would send a positive message to the world. So which candidate would be best suited to address the troubed areas in the world?

Answer: Once again, Ralph Nader, an Arab-American
(Who better to quell the anti-American sentiment in Arab world than an Arab-American)

Can you guess the others?

What's off the table for Ralph?

The empty rhetoric.

The empty gesture.

The empty politics.

What’s on the table?

Taking these issues seriously – all the way to action.

Challenging the corporate domination of our democracy.

Organizing young and old alike, 1,000 in every Congressional district in the country, half a million strong, to take back the country from the corporations.

If Obama or McCain and their parties had seriously and effectively addressed these and other necessities vital to the American people, there would be no need for Ralph Nader to run for President.

Ralph Nader would be happily out of business.

But we’ve waited so very long – and still – not a blip on the political radar screen on any of these issues.

So in this pivotal election year, ask yourself this fundamental question:

Which side are you on?

The corporate criminals, the big banks, Wall Street, the credit card companies, the nuclear power industry, the war profiteers, the agribusiness giants, the health insurance industry, the polluters, the drug companies, the unionbusters, Big Oil, the corporate Democrats and corporate Republicans?

Or with people fighting back?

Vote Nader!

I don't think that Hillary's slight advantage in Senate experience, and the traveling she may have done as First Wife, mean that she is much more experienced in foreign affairs, especially when, as has been pointed out, she has voted for the war and the use of force in Iran. Her experience hasn't led her to wise decisions in the past, and I see no reason to expect that to change.

Barack Obama is an intelligent man, and he won't be making decisions in a vacuum -- I trust him to have equally intelligent people in the State Department, the Defense Department, and the Justice Department, to advise him and guide him toward a just and sensible foreign policy.

There are just too many negatives with the Clintons, and I use the plural deliberately because I'm quite sure that Bill would be involved in Hillary's presidency to a degree that I do not want.

Obama should be our Democratic candidate, and, hopefully, our next president.

I have no problem with the U.S. fighting wars, including preemptive attacks.

What I would like to see if America fight wars to win instead of stalemates and/or loss. That's sadly what we've been doing since the end of WWII.

No occupations, no nation building, no excuses, and no apologies.

Don

On Day One she'll still be Hil-Billery. Always corrupt and always wrong!

Sen. Clinton needs to step back from her comparison to Harry Truman. He was a military man who understood the horrors of war before he got into politics. He also created the Truman Committee which investigated military wastefulness during WWII. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, she not only voted for the war in Iraq, but she also failed to make sure that America's military had the necessary resources to protect our national security (proper equipment, etc.). If President Truman were alive today, he would be saying "Shame on you, Sen. Clinton!" As an aside, he had no foreign policy experience before his vice-presidency nor during (thanks to FDR's disconnect).

The more she's under the gun, the more republican she becomes. I honestly believe she'd rather see McCain elected than Obama. With Obama there's a minimum of 8 years and possibly 16 if he picks a good running mate who could take over in 8. With McCain, there'll be 4 and even more people tired of the war. With the latter, she'd have a chance in 2012. With Obama, her chances to run again are over. It's just too bad that our first woman candidate had to be a Clinton.

Until Hillary firmly denounces releasing the Obama photo & denies ANY involvement from her campaign in releasing it, she doesn't have a leg to stand on in foreign policy.

Anyone willing to use anti-Islamic fear mongering as a stepping stone to the presidency has no place in diplomatic relations with Iraq, Iran, Syria, Turkey, Palestine, Pakistan, Kosovo and other Muslim nations.

I absolutely hate Hillary and especially Bill Clinton. I believe Bill opened the door for 9/11 to happen -- remember the USS Cole, 2 US embassies bombed in Africa, and 1st World Trade Center bombing? What did Bubba do? Seems not a whole lot. No wonder the 9/11 terrorists and Osama bin Laden felt confident they could pull it off! Bush was left with no choice. The Clinton administration also had intelligence re WMDs in Iraq. What was Bush to do, wait and wag his finger at Saddam Hussein telling him he's being naughty? I don't agree with all of Bush's decisions once it was determined WMDs weren't there, but I consider him much more of a leader than Clinton ever was. And I don't see Hillary as being any different from Slick Willy -- she won't commit to any course and takes the path of least resistance, as long as it helps her and to hell with anyone else! I'm sure she saw herself as Bill's co-president.

The Current Occupant has not now nor ever had the experience or intelligence to operate anything in any capacity. Look at the last seven years. Look at Texas still trying to recover after his two term devastation of that state. Look at his life before that. He didn't even make it as a drunk. Yet the American People supposedly voted for him and a prostituted Supreme Court reinforced that dubious achievement.

What's Hillary's experience? First Lady? Yeah, right. Before that? Businesswoman? Ok, but only a mediocre one. Senator? Yeah, for about five or so years more than Obama. Just long enough to make all the wrong votes.

What's Obama's experience? Not much. But you can take this to the bank, He can't possibly do any worse than the Current Occupant. For that matter neither can Hillary. So, if we survive the remaining months of this amazingly ignorant and incomptetent bunch we can survive anything.

I happen to like Obama better. If either of the Clintons wanna make something of that go ahead. Your records aren't that much to brag about.

Regarding Obama, I wonder if Osama Bin Laden said tomorrow that he would like to meet him, how would he react? Would he offer to meet him the same way he did with Raul Castro of Cuba? How about if Saddam Hussain were alive, would he meet with him?

Thank you.

GK

Obama didn't vote for the war because he was NOT a Senator at the time!! He can say all he wants he would have voted against war, but once again it's just words. Hillary, like everyone else who voted for the war, was voting based on erroneous intel which was left incomplete on purpose by Bush and his cronies. I will always blame Bush and Bush alone for this war........

Joe Biden wouldn't know beans from onions about foreign policy. Ask him about stealing a speech from a British politician that kicked him out of the '88 primary race for president. He is just another soft in the head left winger.

Sen. Clinton is the best qualified candidate for leading this nation. Experience IS important. We cannot hand over this major responsibility to someone who has to rely on on-the-job training. WAKE up people. Vote for Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: Sandra | February 25, 2008 2:33 PM

SANDRA WAKE UP!!!

John E correctly points out, Hillary voted for the Iraq war.

This case is closed.

Obama for president 2008!!!

What exactly is this experience Hillary is supposed to possess?

First Lady of Arkansas?
First Lady of the USA?
One and a half terms as junior Senator?

Where's the Beef?

First: Abe Lincoln had even less experience than she claims Obama has. He did OK.
Second: We took out the government in Iraq. Under Sadam the people of Iraq did not have the opportunity to become educated in how to live in a democratic republic, let alone how to run one. We've been learning how to do it for over two hundred years and we are not done yet. How can we possibly expect the Iraqui people to master the subject in five or six years.

Third: The terrorists are not going to quit and become loving neighbors just because we leave. they will be even more repugnant that we have judged Sadam and bin Laden to be.

Based on her own plan, she is not a good choice for America.

Hillary, you wern't even the "first" lady in your husband's white house! How can you claim more experience than Obama when he has more time in public office? Last I heard, First Lady was not an elected office.

Hillary has Zero credibility on foreign policy, hence her Yes vote for the Iraq War. Unfortunately for her, the Clinton camp sits back, rubbing their hands together in glee, as they think on the next Evil Plot to let loose on the annointed one. The reason why Obama is winning because he is not about this GOT-CHA politics, but chooses to debate the issues. Believe me, as all of us know, he could bring up all kind of Dirty things on the Clintons, but this is negative politicking, politics that tears you down and not build you up. Obama is not about this, he wants a more uplifting and unifying tone to dominate Washington, so we can get some things done. Time waits for no one and we must measure up to our times. We must find newer and more positive ways to do things and address our problems. It's called problem solving. And Obama has over 20 years of experience coupled with Judgement.
“
I Found the BEEF - Senator Obama’s Senate Record”
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/21/164117/783/290/461422

Ok Sandra, please detail the experience record of both candidates.
As you stated: "We cannot hand over this major responsibility to someone who has to rely on on-the-job training."; where in Sen Clintons resume has she been President? Unless someone HAS BEEN President then it is OTJ by default.
That being the case; what traits are best for a Chief Executive to have?

It is up to you to "WAKE up people". Let's hear it.

Sen. Clinton is the best qualified candidate for leading this nation. Experience IS important. We cannot hand over this major responsibility to someone who has to rely on on-the-job training. WAKE up people. Vote for Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Three (3) foreign policy issues were raised in the Texas debate: 1) The Iraq War; 2) The election in Pakistan; 3) The change in Cuba's dictatorship.

IRAQ - Obama opposed the Iraq War from day one, and he has a plan to get us out!

PAKISTAN - Obama warned against "putting all of our eggs in the Musharraf basket." He was right! What do we do now that Musharraf (one of the 10 worst dictators in the world, but whom we considered to be one our closest allies) is rendered powerless, Islamic Extremists are in control, and the country is likely to become a haven for Osama and his followers????

CUBA - Obama will end the era of completely ignoring our enemies, which clearly produces no positive results. He will meet without preconditions, but he will expect the "enemy" to agree in advance to discuss certain issues (i.e,. nuclear disarmament, human rights, political prisoners, etc.)

Compare Obama's POSITIONS and JUDGMENT to those of Hillary and McCain and there is no question who is qualified to lead. Hillary is a liar, and McCain actually believes that war is a natural state for our country to be in...

At all times...

At least for the next 8 years...

And probably for the next 100...

A vote for Hillary is no better than a vote for McCain, and a vote for McCain is no better than a vote for Bush!

I keep reading about Sen Clinton's 'experience' - What experience? What has she done? Other than being born before Obama, I don't know anything that she has done to be touting all this 'experience.'

Posted by: Al | February 25, 2008 3:36 PM

Then you will truly love voting for McCain. He will give you 4 more years of it. More wars also. I bet that makes you want to jump right up and vote for him. If you want to jump up and sign up, they could always use you. I already spent my time. Your turn!

Regarding Obama, I wonder if Osama Bin Laden said tomorrow that he would like to meet him, how would he react? Would he offer to meet him the same way he did with Raul Castro of Cuba? How about if Saddam Hussain were alive, would he meet with him?

Thank you.

GK

Posted by: George Kappas | February 25, 2008 4:07 PM

You do realize that we repeatedly met with Saddam, don't you?

Yes, she learned a lot from slick Willy, who bombed Yugoslavia for 100 days over an issue that was none of our ****business.

Colin Powell was on CNN with Wolf Blitzer and they discussed Obama's point of view on meeting with Countries that we aren't allies. Here is the transcript:

POWELL: I think we should be talking to the leaders of states that we have significant disagreements with.

BLITZER: Including state sponsors of terrorism?

POWELL: I was talking to Syria during the time that I was secretary of state. I visited Damascus on a fairly regular basis. They were always tough conversations.

Sometimes I came away with no progress. Sometimes I got things done. Sometimes I did things that helped Israel.

But you have to talk to folks that you may not necessarily like, and you can't put down impossible preconditions for conversation. You can't say, give me what I want before I will talk to you. That doesn't work. It won't work with Syria. It won't work with Iran.

So yes, I would be talking -- you know, we have an embassy that's open in Damascus, Syria. So I'd send the ambassador back and begin a dialogue.

BLITZER: What about Iran?

POWELL: I would talk to Iran. We were starting to have quiet conversations with Iran at a low level. Mr. Obama did not say he would talk. He said we.

And we were talking to Iran in a very low level, multilateral conversations, and were -- they had some value to them. And so, I would begin the conversations with the Iranians.

We're talking to them in Baghdad every few months about security matters, and if we can do that in Baghdad with our ambassador and their representatives, I don't see why we can't speak to them in other fora.

And it doesn't mean on a single issue. Just start talking to them about the full range of issues that have kept us in this situation which each other since 1979. It's time to move on.

America is a strong, powerful nation. We are politically powerful, economically powerful, militarily powerful. And it seems to me that with all of this power and all of this influence in the world, we should be willing to talk to nations that are basically weaker than we are. And we should not be afraid to be seen talking to them.

Obama '08!

I just can't believe that being married to the president is now considered overwhelming foreign policy experience--if one of Clinton's advisors on foreign policy was running that argument might make sense, but osmosis via marriage? How many of us claim we have as much experience as our spouse at his or her career, since we're married? If you buy this, you should be trying to draft Lynn Cheney for Dem presidential candidate--she's as smart as Clinton and her experience is more recent and relevent. No matter how long she's been married, Clinton's judgment on foreign policy as displayed in the Senate and in this campaign has been dreadful: the Iraq vote, Iran, insulting Putin, and who wants to apply the Insult 40 States strategy to international relations?

Biden is one of the best we have on foreign policy. I'm surprised he didn't get farther in the campaign.

Hey Kappas, way to delve into hypothetical irrelevancy. Speaking about Saddam Hussein as if he's alive is the highest form of nonsense. It's offsetting to see that someone with little regard or grasp of realistic scenarios will be voting.

As for Hillary, she is a complete HACK. Since the polls say that most Americans don't support pre-emptive war, she states that she doesn't support it either. Too bad that flies directly in the face of the votes she cast, which DID START A PRE-EMPTIVE WAR. Too bad she ALREADY FAILED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE when it was time for her to step up to the plate. Too bad she didn't use ANY of her so-called "experience" as first lady to try to sway the vote if she disagreed with it. Too bad that up until a COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO, she was walking in the same drum line as Bush, beating the same war drums ramping up the rhetoric against Iran.

I really wonder if this woman even remembers what shoes she put on by the end of the day. She certainly demonstrates an inability to actually let her actions reflect the platitudes she spits out on stage.

In terms of "experience," I think she's the absolute worst candidate, even among the Republican primary candidates. She's nothing but another career politico that is entirely beholden to corporate interests and who has no regard for the good of the American people. Like Nader, she is only out to promote herself and to stroke her ego.

Anyone who is supported by the Israeli lobby is not to be trusted. Therefore, if Obama is being supported by AIPAC and its cohorts, rest assured that Israel will be pulling the strings to a possible pre-emptve attack on Iran to secure its uncontested power in the Middle East. Obama will be beholden to the Israeli lobby and those Zionist oranizations so much that he will do their bidding at the cost of more American lives. It is amazing that none of the moderators of the debates ever questioned them (Obama and Clinton) regarding the Israeli lobby, which for decades had a stranglehold on foreign policy decisions of the Office of the President and Congress. This lobby is notorious for making or breaking a political figure.

Vote Independent - Ralph Nader. He knows the workings of D.C., the lobbyist quagmire, and the snakes that abound there. HE IS REALLY THE PERSON FOR "CHANGE AND HOPE", not "Just words....(borrowing from Deval Parick via Obama.

I want to offer a point about the vote authorizing the use of force in Iraq. Yes, Hillary voted for that along with 70 or 80 other Senators.

I know we have a short memory and while many of us are against the war now, in 2002/3 - the vast majority of American's wanted action against the terrorists. Bush's popularity was at or near 80%. 9/11/2001 was not a distant memory but rather an attach that many American's wanted action on.

You can not blame Hillary and the other 70 or 80 Senators for their "poor judgement" - when the President and his administration allies - created intelligence stating Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, was housing and supporting Al-Queda - and more.

I know some of our Senators ignored that intelligence - but based on the facts known at the time, and the risk to our country we all thought was real, she used sound judgement.

She would be a President that wouldn't make-up intelligence or lie to American's about an issue of such importance.

I think it is a false choice to suggest that one vote sums up the difference between Barack and Hillary. There is much, much more to evaluate.

Hey people how many time do you have to be told, Obama did not vote on the war with Iraq. He was not in the US Senate. He just suggested that we not go to war. I did the same, I said it was not worth the lives it would cost. Do I get to be President, if that is the only prerequisite, I qualify.

I'm really astonished that Hillary was able to approve going to war all by herself. Boy as a US Senator she really had a lot a power.

Joe Biden wouldn't know beans from onions about foreign policy. Ask him about stealing a speech from a British politician that kicked him out of the '88 primary race for president. He is just another soft in the head left winger.

Posted by: Ray Gorak

He's the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, Ray.

I suppose to a Clintonite that still doesn't qualify as "EXPERIENCE" - unless, of course, he endorsed Hillary. Then he'd be all the rage.

Are we voting to elect Obama or all the people he will need to go to when something needs him to make a decision, any decision. I want to know the person we elect can handle the Presidency all by his/herself. They will need advisors, but that is all (advisors) not stand-ins as president.

HILARY CLINTON WIL BE STRONGER THAN GENERAL PATTON.!

Colin who?

I love how Susan Rice and the Obama camp fail to point out that Obama co-sponsored legislation (s. 970) in March of 07, that was virtually identical to the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, wherein, it also deemed the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terroist organization. Whats also alarming is the media's penchant for ignoring Obama's flip flops. How can Obama tout Hillary's vote for Kyl-Lieberman "reckless" when, not only it was the same as s970, it was also being supported by Obama's mentor Dick Durbin. Durbin was actually suprised Obama didn't vote the same as him (because he usually does), and said in no way did it give bush the power to invade Iran, otherwise if it did, he wouldn't have voted for the measure.

I would also like the media to examine the differing positions Obama has taken concerning NAFTA, single payer health care, his votes funding the Iraq war even though he promised in his senate campaign that he would vote against any Iraq bill, and if he still plans to take away funding from NASA. He hasn't been truthful in his campaign (even though he promises to be), and his positions aren't clear, so thats why I will not be voting for him. I don't understand how anyone else could support him either, but i'm guessing that the same people who are asking silly questions like "What's Hillary's experience?", are Obama supporters. It seems like only they would not bother looking up Hillary's experience for themselves, so they must not have looked into Obama's either.

Hillary is getting pathetic. The smear campaigns unleashed over the past week are lame...and now the Clinton campaign is smearing the voters?? In her world, only "latte-drinking trust fund babies" support Obama?? Shame on you Hillary.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/opinion/24rich.html?em&ex=1204088400&en=3e9996b4403c243c&ei=5087%0A

Today's Washignton Post, which the DNC's Swamp affiliate often uses for story sources when the story helps Democrats, has a stinging story on Obama's policy flip flops:

"Top Obama Flip-Flops

Monday, February 25, 2008; Page A04

1. Special interests. In January, the Obama campaign described union contributions to the campaigns of Clinton and John Edwards as "special interest" money. Obama changed his tune as he began gathering his own union endorsements. He now refers respectfully to unions as the representatives of "working people" and says he is "thrilled" by their support.

2. Public financing. Obama replied "yes" in September 2007 when asked if he would agree to public financing of the presidential election if his GOP opponent did the same. Obama has now attached several conditions to such an agreement, including regulating spending by outside groups. His spokesman says the candidate never committed himself on the matter.

3. The Cuba embargo. In January 2004, Obama said it was time "to end the embargo with Cuba" because it had "utterly failed in the effort to overthrow Castro." Speaking to a Cuban American audience in Miami in August 2007, he said he would not "take off the embargo" as president because it is "an important inducement for change."

4. Illegal immigration. In a March 2004 questionnaire, Obama was asked if the government should "crack down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants." He replied "Oppose." In a Jan. 31, 2008, televised debate, he said that "we do have to crack down on those employers that are taking advantage of the situation."

5. Decriminalization of marijuana. While running for the U.S. Senate in January 2004, Obama told Illinois college students that he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use. In the Oct. 30, 2007, presidential debate, he joined other Democratic candidates in opposing the decriminalization of marijuana."

As the song goes, "They call him Flipper, Flipper...."

I have no problem with the U.S. fighting wars, including preemptive attacks.

What I would like to see if America fight wars to win instead of stalemates and/or loss. That's sadly what we've been doing since the end of WWII.

No occupations, no nation building, no excuses, and no apologies.

Don

Posted by: Don | February 25, 2008 3:27 PM

Shorter Don-

Amerika Uber Alles!

This is why Hillary lost my vote; rather than stand by her failed positions and admitting she messed up, she tries to get us to focus on Obama's youth, correct vision, and optimism.

Hillary's attack tactics are turning me and thousands of others off. We have a chance to rise above the hate, the bickering, and negativism, and the "vast_________(fill in the blank, based on your own paranoia) conspiracy".

Obama is a fresh start (although he had best keep his wife quiet, as she is going to really mess this up for him).

Why is it that the Boomers (the we are the best there will ever be generation, always right never wrong)cannot seem to stomach a young briliant, inspirational man become our President, it is not one of their own...boo hoo

How will Obama work in Washington DC, if he has been bashing the politics in DC in all his debates. Is he going to be running the show all alone if he gets elected? How can he move ahead without the support from the Congress? Are we looking for a change where Nothing gets done and things come to a standstill?

Hillary is the deserving candidate, She has the passion, the experience, the knowledge, the poise and the clarity to lead the Country.

Go Hillary!!

Regarding Obama, I wonder if Osama Bin Laden said tomorrow that he would like to meet him, how would he react? Would he offer to meet him the same way he did with Raul Castro of Cuba? How about if Saddam Hussain were alive, would he meet with him?

Thank you.

GK

Hussein used to be our ally - we armed him to fight the Iranians. We've been doing more than talking with these dopes.

Everytime Americans see a photo of Barack Hussein Obama now, they'll picture him with that turban on his head and in full dress.

This is an insult to all the families that lost loved ones on 9/11 and to our military hero's.

Paulo

HRC is contradicting herself once again. Now she says she won't meet unconditionally with the new leader of Cuba. One year ago, she said otherwise. In a January 2007 interview with Anderson COoper, she said "that means not only bringing countries together that we already have relations with and we are engaged with but it means being engaged with countries that our president will not engage with. I don’t understand this philosophy that we don’t talk to bad guys. we talked to soviet union all during cold war."

If she says what she means, she would have no problem sticking with a consistent message.

Name one substantial conflict diplomacy has solved? Korea?? We are still over there. Vietnam??? We pulled out and quit.

How has diplomacy work so far in the Middle East? Let's ask Israel.

How did diplomacy work in World War II? Let's ask the Jews again.

Maybe we just need a real smart person like Hillary to make the right argument to all of the terrorists and the countries that support them? I can see it now....

"...and as you can see Mr. Bin Laden, it makes absolutely no sense to make war on America and kill innocent people around the world."

"By golly, you are right Mrs. Clinton! Why didn't I think of that before?! I will end the jihad right now. Let's have lemonade and celebrate!!"

That is the problem with liberal democrats. They like to view the world through these "rose colored glasses." They do not like to say and do things that upset people, no matter how true or correct they are.

The reality is the world can be a very cruel place at times. Most conflicts between countries and peoples are solved one way, through war. One side gains an overwhelming advantage and leaves the other side with two options: death or peace.

I am sorry. This is how it works.

Do people honestly believe a peace can be achieved in the Middle East through diplomacy? How many times have we tried this?? Do you honestly believe the U.S. will stop supporting Israel? Do you honestly believe that the problem will go away if we pull out of Iraq??? And if we do pull out of Iraq, do you think the problem will be any better 5, 10, 15 years down the road????

As for unilateralism versus multilateralism…if you want something done right, you do it yourself. Besides, we have been doing most of the world’s heavy lifting for 100+ years now. Why should this be any different?

Who cares, Hillary is finished.

Fight the real enemy people:

Bob Dole Only Wanted The Kids To Keep Off His Lawn
...John McCain/Bush not only want's the kids to stay of his lawn, he wants your arses in Baghdad 'til 2100.

Get Off My Lawn, you Kids...and leave my crooked Lobbyists Friends alone!!!!
http://s86.photobucket.com/albums/k88/Duke_S/?action=view¤t=McCain_GOML_200.jpg

Where are all these fanatic bloggers coming from, (out of the woodwork? as the phrase goes)? Listen all, go back to your American History Class. Congress can overcome/overrule any presidential veto with a 2/3 vote. That being said, we must understand that Obama is not perfect. That being said, we must understand that he is the more honest, the more authentic/genuine, the least tied to and/or associated with special interests, the more intelligent, the more refined and polished, the more academically distinquished, and the more able to control his emotions. Hillary's behavior on the campaign trail reminds me of small-town Arkansas politics, scratching each others' backs and speaking the words to please the masses. Sorry Hillary, no way will I ever vote for you.

Do people honestly believe a peace can be achieved in the Middle East through diplomacy? How many times have we tried this?? Do you honestly believe the U.S. will stop supporting Israel? Do you honestly believe that the problem will go away if we pull out of Iraq??? And if we do pull out of Iraq, do you think the problem will be any better 5, 10, 15 years down the road????

As for unilateralism versus multilateralism…if you want something done right, you do it yourself. Besides, we have been doing most of the world’s heavy lifting for 100+ years now. Why should this be any different?

Posted by: Topshelf1921 | February 25, 2008 6:35 PM

*********************

If one recalls correctly, the first terrorist attack from a Middle East entity came in 1993 with the first bombing of the WTC. This came after we bombed Iraq in the bogus liberation of Kuwait during Bush Sr.'s tenure as President. The truth about the first Persian Gulf War had to do with the Bush family's oil interests in the gulf, not about the liberation of Kuwait. Prior to us bombing Iraq, (ironically, we supplied its weapons during the Iraq-Iran War), no terrorist attacks were ever made on American soil. Truthfully,, the causes of terrorism on American soil were because WE BOMBED THEM FIRST AND profaned THEIR MUSLIM LANDS WITH MILITARY BASES, all to protect the oil interests of the Bush/Cheney families and their friends.

Come on - if some neighbor down the street drops poisonous garbage on your yard , and then decides to set up a tent next to the garage on your plot of land, wouldn't you seek revenge or a way (often violent) to get the unwelcome poacher out?

P.S. The last HONORABLE U.S. military engagement was the Korean War, and even that ended with a split decision.

Experience? What experience? My heart surgeons' wife has been with him for 17 years. Does that make her qualified to perform surgery?

My 8 year old asked me who I was voting for. I said Obama. She asked why I was not voting for a woman. I told her that it is not that a woman is not qualified to be president, just not THAT woman.

Billary road is being re-paved and Obama is driving the steam roller!

Hillary is FULL of it. She has experience in foreign policy, doing what?

Was she so busy traveling around when she was first lady was why old Bill decided to have Lewinski under the desk?

Hillary is a failure as a leader, woman and as a wife.

She can't control her campaing, she can't control her moods (one minute, she's nice and the next she's evil) and she can't control her man, Now, she wants to control our country LOL

5. Decriminalization of marijuana. While running for the U.S. Senate in January 2004, Obama told Illinois college students that he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use. In the Oct. 30, 2007, presidential debate, he joined other Democratic candidates in opposing the decriminalization of marijuana."
As the song goes, "They call him Flipper, Flipper...."

Posted by: Alice Palmer | February 25, 2008 6:07 PM

Nutty Wingnut,

If you think that you're going to convince people to vote for crazy John McCain with that dribble and effectively give George W Bush a third term you're out of you're freaking mind.

John McCain/Bush has locksteped with George W Bush on everything except tax cuts for the rich and torture and he just recently flip-flopped on those two.

http://lessjobsmorewars.com/

NEXT!!!

It is interesting listening to my friend's biased opinions on Hillary and Obama. They all flinch when their candidate is critized. I try to filter my own biased opinion and concentrate on the simple observations: First, Obama has not said anything specific except of meaningless words like "change" and
"I will bring people together and improve America's image overseas." How? I haven't heard any details only useless words. However, Hillary seems to be tagged with the negativeness of her husband and all the Clinton haters. I think Hillary knows the inner workings of the Government and she will be the most effective candidate. The feel good about America and the changes he will somehow cause Americans to believe are questionable. Obama will change the Federal Government? That is simply IMPOSSIBLE? No one, including Lincoln, could tame the monster and no one will ever be able to tame it. There is too much money to be made on the Federal Government and that will NEVER, NEVER change. So what does one do about taming the monster? One muct know how the system works and do their best to turn its head to steer it another direction..that person seems at this time in history to be Hillary...the executive, take no prisoners, steel woman with a great purpose. I believe she will try her best to improve all American lives which are, incidentially, at a pretty comfortable stage.

Sen. Clinton is the best qualified candidate for leading this nation. Experience IS important. We cannot hand over this major responsibility to someone who has to rely on on-the-job training. WAKE up people. Vote for Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: Sandra | February 25, 2008 2:33 PM

Yup, Clinton has done a great job. She helped get us into Iraq and 11 trillion dollars later...

Don't believe the HYPE!

Obama voted no on the war.

Obama 2008

HRC is desparate, ramping up the attacks on BO in conjunction with the OH and TX polls showing a closer race than anticipated by the Clinton machine. The whole "I'm honored" thing at the end of the last debate was nothing more than a emotional plea that worked once before...give me a break. She's a phony, and if I have to look at that fake smile a minute longer I'll bust. She thought that the democratic nomination was her's months ago and is completely surprised by a new comer, a la Bill Clinton. Hopefully Obama will win the nomination and shun Hillary as a running mate...that will be the cherry on the top!

Clinton's experience in foreign affairs is limited. She has much greater experience in domestic affairs especially Bill's. When it comes to health care her failed proposals included jail time for physicians who refused to practice within the guidelines she dictated.

Why is it that the Boomers (the we are the best there will ever be generation, always right never wrong)cannot seem to stomach a young briliant, inspirational man become our President, it is not one of their own...boo hoo

Posted by: Jim | February 25, 2008 6:13 PM

I actually talked to my old man about this over beers a couple've months ago. He was pulling some old-man rant on how my generation isn't marching on Washington and burning our bras and all that... and I asked him why was it that his generation, that was so politically engaged as youth, has managed to produce such overwhelmingly underwhelming leadership as adults? I mean... the Boomers have elected some truly fundamentally flawed Presidents. Bill Clinton & George W. Bush? And now it looks like they're done? Wow.. talk about a massive dissappointment.

Hillary, there is a giant elephant in the corner of the room, and it is wearing a T-shirt that says "your Iraq War vote". Clinton can boast about her foreign policy credentials all she wants, but it is no substitute for good judgement. It is not 2004, and this is not a fear-based election. It is time to elect a president that knows the importance of being *right* on day one.

I DO NOT want a president that starts doing critical things on "DAY ONE". I want one who takes some time to assess the situation, check with advisors, and then act. The probems the country faces (war, economic, ...) have existed for awhile. Taking some time to make sure before acting is key. Hillary continually saying "READY ON DAY ONE" is jsut rhetoric playing on people's emotions to get herself elected. Sure she's "READY ON DAY ONE". Anyone with an ego the size of hers and a total disregard for facts and advise of experts would be!

To me so far, Obama has a lot of pretty words, but not a lot of details yet. Hillary, where is the experience you talk about? You have been in elective office less than Obama (7 years to 9 years).
Hillary has been shown to be a rallying point for Republicans. Can Obama get things done by working across the aisle? Reagan did it. I doubt that Hillary will be able to do it becuase even though the Presidency is up, how many seats are the Democrats likely to gain in congress?

Sorry can't vote for HillBilly. Too much WashingtonInsider. Obama's lack of experience is what makes him a viable candidate. No real ideas? No problem, the past few ideas have sucked anyways.

If you think the most powerful nation in the world should be run by a guy with NO experience NONE WHAT SO EVER in foreign policy , a guy that reminds a lot of people of JIM JONES and Kool= Aid vote Obama the MESSIAH! Think it over for yourself remember those fast talking used car sales men ! Think Obama the Messiah! Obama 08 for a CHANGE YOUR KIDS WILL NEVER FORGET!

Hillary and foreign policy? Frightening vision, isn't it? Hillary as commander-in-chief? Based on what kind of foreign policy?
Well, she will have the lobbyists to help, I guess. Business as usual in DC!

Oh brother, she is so running for president. Who the heck wants to trust her on 'day one' or day two or three or four, she who voted to invade Iraq, she who refuses to say her vote was a mistake, she who has all the blood on her hands of our killed soldiers, disabled soldiers, homeless veterans and millions of innocent killed Iraqis. She needs to quit. In fact how dare she speak as she does given what she has done. And what's even more unbelievable are the Americans who said and say they were against the invasion of Iraq and then go vote for Clinton. The same blood then is on their hands too. And just because she'd be sitting in the oval office doesn't mean her judgment would change. It wouldn't.

Many people--now with stars in their eyes--will have extreme buyers remorse if BHO makes it to office. They will find BHO to be a lemon.

It isn't really important who is elected.

Experience - many persons elected president of the US had no experience and proved to be up to the job.

The real question is: who will meet the constitutional requirement to protect the country from our enemies and from illegal aliens. If either of thses groups takes over the country, its over no matter who the president is.

Remember, Hillary is a New York Senator, and 9/11 occured in NY. I wonder what feelings the New Yorkers would have had had she not voted for the war. It was a tough decision she made with the people of New York as well as the country at heart. Suppose there was a real "mission accomplish", will Obama be heard at all? THINK ABOUT IT AMERICA! Besides America, "THE DEVIL THAT YOU KNOW, AND THE ONE THAT YOU DONT KNOW IS DIFFERENT." Whatever indifference that people may have about the Clintons, I say give them another chance to clear up this mess. The load in America today is very heavy, and I see Obama's and McCain's head as small to carry it at this point. I see Obama as a back up guy to Clinton, and to come up later as President.
My fear is that, due to his lack of experience at this moment, "he might just win the presidency for political mongers who feel that they can give him the proper advice." Poor Obama will listen, just to compentiate for their support or because he may feel that they have been in politics for a long time. THINK ABOUT GEORGE BUSH PRESIDENCY! At least I must commend and give praise to Obama, for letting the Clintons dont feel that they are the only presidential hopefuls. And I believe that if she is elected president, she will do all she can to please the American people, as they are no more to be viewed lightly. Finally, I know the youths at this point needs Obama, but unfortunately the problem facing America today (is an elephant head), and an elephant head is not an easy load to carry. I DO PREFER A DREAM TICKET FOR CLINTON AND OBAMA if not...
THANK YOU.

Here’s some info about Generals supporting Hillary.

General Henry Hugh Shelton has endorsed her to be the Nation's next Commander-in- Chief. One of our nation's top military figures, General Shelton served two terms as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush. In announcing his endorsement, General Shelton said, "I've been with Senator Clinton when she has been with our military men and women. I know from those experiences that she understands the demands and sacrifice of military life. I am confident she will always put the readiness and well being of our troops first. She is ready to be Commander-in- Chief."

General Shelton joins General John Shalikashvili as the second former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to have endorsed Senator Clinton. General Shelton is the fourth flag officer to endorse Senator Clinton this week.

The first Green Beret to serve as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shelton served our Nation with distinction over a career that spanned 38 years. General Shelton served two tours of duty in Vietnam , and was awarded a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart. He was assistant commander of the 101st Airborne Division during Operation Desert Storm in Iraq , and later commanded the 82nd Airborne Division. Prior to serving as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Shelton commanded U.S. Special Operations Forces. He served as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the nation's highest ranking military office, from 1997-2001.

General Shelton joins a distinguished group of 28 retired flag officers who have endorsed Senator Clinton to be our nation's next Commander-in- Chief. In addition, more than 2,000 veterans and military retirees are members of Senator Clinton's national and state veterans' steering committees.

"I am so proud to have the endorsement of General Shelton. He has spent his career commanding our country's elite military units. He commanded at the highest level of our nation's armed forces, while always remaining dedicated to the effectiveness of their combat capabilities and the well-being of their families."

Generals Endorsing Hillary Clinton for President and Commander-in- Chief

1. General Wesley Clark

2. General John M. Shalikashvili

3. General Henry Hugh Shelton

4. General Johnnie E. Wilson

5. Admiral William Owens

6. Lt. Gen. Joe Ballard

7. Lt. Gen. Robert Gard

8. Lt. Gen. Claudia J. Kennedy

9. Lt. Gen. Donald L. Kerrick

10. Lt. Gen. Frederick E. Vollrath

11. Vice Admiral Joseph A. Sestak

12. Major General Roger R. Blunt

13. Major General George A. Buskirk, Jr.

14. Major General Edward L. Correa, Jr.

15. Major General Paul D. Eaton

16. Major General Paul D. Monroe, Jr.

17. Major General Antonio M. Taguba

18. Rear Admiral Connie Mariano

19. Rear Admiral Alan M. Steinman

20. Rear Admiral David Stone

21. Brigadier General Michael Dunn

22. Brigadier General Belisario Flores

23. Brigadier General Evelyn "Pat" Foote

24. Brigadier General Keith H. Kerr

25. Brigadier General Virgil A. Richard

26. Brigadier General Preston Taylor

27. Brigadier General John M. Watkins, Jr.

28. Brigadier General Jack Yeager