Marc Ambinder (July 26, 2007) - Day Three: Obama To Clinton: Prove You're Different Than Bush-Cheney?

Ohhhh right! So if we just TELL Iran that we don't approve of what they're doing, then they'll just say OK! and stop...Oh wise Obama, you are so experienced and smart! Is he seriously running for president? Becuase I'm pretty sure he couldnt even be hired to run a multi-million dollor corporation because of lack of experience and we're going to let him run one of the most powerful countries in the world? RIDICULOUS!

Posted by Heather | July 26, 2007 11:10 AM

"Direct negotiations with countries like Iran and Syria are not a sign of weakness, they are a sign of ledership...The Bush Administration's refusal to talk to anyone on the evil side as some have called that idealistic, but I call it dangerously unrealistic."

Hillary Clinton, October 31, 2006, Council of Foreign Relations in NYC

Posted by goethean | July 26, 2007 11:13 AM

Heather: How much foreign policy experience does a former first lady have? A former mayor of NYC? A former governor of Masachusetts and CEO? A one-term senator, lobbyist, and actor?

Or maybe you support a second-tier candidate?

Posted by goethean | July 26, 2007 11:17 AM

When is Hillary going to discuss the autism epidemic from thimerosal being injected into babies in her vaccine program?

Posted by Toni T | July 26, 2007 11:24 AM

For the moment, let’s leave aside the issue of whether a President should squander the “Coin of the Realm” meeting with Enemies of the State individually and without pre-condition (I disagree with Obama here, FYI). Still, this issue speaks to a larger concern I have with candidate Obama: his tendency to be inattentive to the details.

In every debate, Obama has proven himself to be unable to grasp the parameters and specifics of a question. As a consequence, his answers are often ill-suited and open to exploitation.

With an eye to the general election, why should the Democrats elect someone whose rookie carelessness makes him vulnerable to ruinous accusations and characterizations?

For example, the day after the YouTube debate, the Miami Herald had a headline that read:

Obama, Edwards say they would meet with Castro, Chavez.

(http://www.miamiherald.com/579/story/179947.html)

It doesn’t take much imagination to envision these same headlines featured ad nauseam within the deluge of GOP campaign ads hitting the Florida airwaves morphing Democratic Presidential nominee Obama with Castro and Ahmadinejad. Tell me again the upside for the Democrats in needlessly angering the Cubans and the Jews?

Why should the Democrats elect a candidate who would so recklessly hand Florida’s electoral votes to the GOP, and on a silver-platter, nonetheless?

The GOP will eat Obama alive on this one.

Eat. Obama. Alive.

Posted by JoeCHI | July 26, 2007 11:29 AM

RON PAUL 2008!

Posted by Jim | July 26, 2007 11:32 AM

It is futile to talk to a known liar who hates you and vows to destroy you? Make your position known and stand by it. I do not understand a reason to talk to Iran, and I certainly don’t think we need to pick which terrorist we like best, Fatah, Hamas or Hezbollah are all the sworn enemies of Israel and America and Britton and Iran supports them all as did Saddam Hussein. If we don’t stand against the Muslim attempt at world rule now we will soon be forced to bow to the Muslim Shariah Islamic Law and jizya tax later. Study the history of Islam and the past leadership throughout history as well as what Muslims are doing around the world instead of the propaganda they use in the west. Look what Europe is going through presently. Do a cursory search on the web on Shariah Islamic Law or Shari law and wake up!

Posted by GwapoJoe | July 26, 2007 11:51 AM

Refusing to talk to North Korea led to development and testing of nuclear weapons. Relenting and talking to admittedly bad guys moved us/them back from the brink and they have now shut down their reactor. Explain to me how this is weakness, rather than diplomacy? Similarly, please explain why sanctions against Cuba and North Korea have resulted in those two nations remaining the only true communist countries on earth. Obama has a clear vision of how to make the world a better place that is safer and more secure for all Americans. Whatever happened to "speak softly but carry a big stick"? That statement requires speaking, no? And, Obama is unique among candidates in seeking to increase funding for a stronger and more robust military. Not only is Ted Sorensen correct that Obama is the new JFK, he's also the new Teddy Roosevelt.

Posted by Doug R | July 26, 2007 12:03 PM

From today's Chicago Tribune - Best line - re: Madeline Albright defense of Hillary - "Being praised for your diplomatic sophistication by Albright is like being complimented on your sense of humor by John Kerry."

Commentary
Clinton unlikely to change course on intervention
Steve Chapman

July 26, 2007

During the Democratic debate in South Carolina, I heard something I never expected to hear: Hillary Rodham Clinton coming out against U.S. military intervention.

At least I think she was coming out against U.S. military intervention. Asked whether U.S. troops should be sent to Darfur, the New York senator made a valiant effort to dodge the question by declaiming about sanctions, divestment and UN peacekeepers. But when pressed, "How about American troops on the ground?" she finally said, a bit awkwardly, "American ground troops I don't think belong in Darfur at this time."

But don't bet that she'll stick to that position if she's elected. It goes against type. Clinton favored intervention in Haiti in 1994. She favored intervention in Bosnia in 1995. She favored intervention in Kosovo in 1999. As first lady, Clinton said, "I am very pleased that this president and administration have made democracy one of the centerpieces of our foreign policy." Before the Kosovo war, she phoned Bill from Africa and, she recalled later, "I urged him to bomb."

Among her critics, Clinton is known for a mother-knows-best domestic policy that relies on overbearing interference from Washington to remake the landscape to her specifications. The flip side is a mother-knows-best foreign policy that relies on overbearing interference from Washington to remake the landscape to her specifications.

Democrats hope that when it comes to international affairs, Clinton would represent a big change from President Bush. Republicans harbor that fear. In truth, this is one realm where the two are more alike than different. It's no accident that she voted for the resolution authorizing the president to invade Iraq. And it's no mystery that she was slow to admit the war was failing.

She didn't support the war because she was hoodwinked by Bush. She didn't do it for strictly political reasons. She supported it because of her conception of America's proper role in the world, which combines a thirst for altruistic missions with a faith in the value of military force to get what you want. Those same impulses, of course, motivated the neoconservatives who urged Bush to go into Iraq.

On the morning after the South Carolina debate, the Clinton campaign trotted out former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to gush about the senator's declaration that she would not meet with various dictators "until we know better what the way forward would be." Said Albright, "She gave a very sophisticated answer that showed her understanding of the diplomatic process."

Being praised for your diplomatic sophistication by Albright is like being complimented on your sense of humor by John Kerry. Albright is the renowned diplomat who helped the Clinton administration blunder its way into an 11-week aerial war in Kosovo. Albright was confident that Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic would cave at the first whiff of gunpowder, and was shocked when he didn't.

That misjudgment had disastrous consequences. The Serbs responded not by capitulating but by greatly escalating their war on Kosovo's ethnic Albanians. Some 10,000 of them died, and more than a million were forced from their homes. If the war was a success, it was a very mixed one. The same could be said about Bosnia and Haiti, where the results fell far short of our intentions.

Like Iraq, the Kosovo war demonstrated the folly of taking military action without preparing for the worst. Both also showed the dangers of unchecked hubris.

But those are not lessons Clinton has necessarily absorbed. When she ran for the Senate in 2000, she mocked Republicans (such as Caspar Weinberger and Colin Powell) who think "we should intervene with force only when we face splendid little wars that we surely can win, preferably by overwhelming force in a relatively short period of time." On the contrary, she said, we "should not ever shy away from the hard task if it is the right one."

As Michael Crowley of The New Republic noted, she had another reason for supporting Bush on Iraq: "I'm a strong believer in executive authority," she said in 2003. "I wish that, when my husband was president, people in Congress had been more willing to recognize presidential authority."

There you have it. A Hillary Rodham Clinton presidency promises to unite Madeleine Albright's zeal for using bombs in pursuit of liberal ideals with Dick Cheney's vision of the president as emperor. Won't that be fun?

----------

Steve Chapman is a member of the Tribune's editorial board. E-mail: schapman@tribune.com

Posted by Doug R | July 26, 2007 12:07 PM

Honestly, I'm not seeing any candidate on either side that is worth my vote at this point. Whoever is elected is in for a rude awakening once they reach the White House. If you go in there thinking you know it all and have all the answers and things are going to be easy, then good luck.

Posted by Heather | July 26, 2007 12:16 PM

Talk is over rated.

The Clinton administration "talked" to North Korea, even gave them a nuclear power plant, but that didn't stop them from secretly continueing their nuclear weapon programs.

What does Obama think can be accomplished by playing patty-cake with Ahmadinejad? That he just has to smile and ask if "we can all just get along" and that they will stop funding Hezbollah, building nuclear weapons and threatening Israel?

Seriously, I'm a Clinton-hater, but this guy makes Hillary look sober and responsible. He should stop leaping up to sing Kumbayah as the answer to every question.

Posted by John | July 26, 2007 12:17 PM

what is WRONG wth you all?

most of you have drawn a line in the sand and say "its either you or us, chumps!".

you're propelling the country down the road we're on. do you see?

it takes TIME to convince people. it takes a RELATIONSHIP before people see you as human and not "THE ENEMY".

seriously, folks - you talk about EXPERIENCE. where are we now?

baby steps, people.

start extricating ourselves from the pit by making friends- to an extent. THATS WHERE OBAMA ROCKS. cause he will push the button and launch on your a**, but not until after he's sat down with you, looked you in the eye and told you so.

i like it.

DROP the POLITICS and ask yourself WHOS THE BEST LEADER? if you dont think it's obama fine, but--

a huge ocean liner is only steered by the captain. 100s of other people do the rest of the work- their jobs remain the same regardless of the captain. who do you want to steer the boat? EXPERIENCED POLITICIAN?

Posted by josh | July 26, 2007 12:19 PM

But Barrack now says that since he lived overseas as a little kid and because he majored in "international relations" in college....that he is the "most qualified" person to run our foreign policy. If our political media wasnt so interested in setting up a obama-clinton feud and horse race....maybe they would look at just how ridiculous his claims really are. I mean, come on, because he majored in international relations...yikes...thats looney...and I went to the same college!

Posted by dem dem | July 26, 2007 12:20 PM

Heather, nobody is saying just tell them and they will do it. Obviously that does not work. You have to understand the Muslim world has an ego too and when you come at them with a "Do it or else approach" it's like calling out someone to a fight in the middle school cafeteria. Nobody, especially a Muslim leader, is going to capitulate to our every demand when we take that approach. We have a much better chance of a favorable outcome by giving them some respect and at least trying to negotiate with them as equals and I think that's where Obama is going with his approach.

With that being said, I beleive a nuclear Iran is unacceptable and I would be behind military action 100% to prevent it, but let's at least exhaust all of our capacity to negotiate before we resort to that. There are too many US lives on the line.

Oh and by the way we are not just "one of the most powerful nations in the world" WE ARE THE MOST POWERFUL NATION IN THE WORLD. If we intend to keep that status we better start making friends instead of pissing everyone off with our arrogant approach to foreign policy....

Posted by GP | July 26, 2007 12:21 PM

Hillary Clinton is wrong and should look to her husband's administration for guidance. Not only did Bill Clinton talk to Iran, Venezuela and North Korea, he dated them!

Posted by Jim Greene | July 26, 2007 12:23 PM

GP, if he will go in and talk things over, and if that doesnt work, then take the next step, then I'm 100% ok with that. What I'm not ok with is all these candidates making it sound like they're going to walk right in and clean up all of the messes that have been made. It is not going to be easy and they don't have all the answers, so they need to stop being so arrogant.

Posted by Heather | July 26, 2007 12:35 PM

Why are we debating one or two issues of our foreign policy? Why don't we debate the whole thing!

Why are we the police force of the world? Can we really say that what we are doing is right all of the time? How about most of the time? Maybe just some of the time? How can candidates honestly claim that our actions abroad doesn't have consequences? Do they really think we can just go around and screw people over and not expect them to seek revenge? I am very concerned by the inconsistences of our foreign policy, and I would like to mention a couple of points that I feel is a good arguement to non-intervention:

We personally have a moral obligation to others in foreign countries, but our government only has an obligation to America and its people. As the most powerful country in the world, America can easily force its' will on the international community. But is this right? Do we know what's best, and are we willing to suffer the consequences of our actions when we are wrong and when we are right? Even in a situation that has little or no relevance to the safety of our people? Maybe some of us don't want these deeds done under their name and with their tax money. Government sponsered interventionism is tantamount to a 'tyranny by the majority' (or minority in Bushs first term!).

Should the people decide they can no longer tolerate an injustice, they are free to act as individuals...in the name of themselves and/or an organization they serve, but not for all the poeple of America.

Posted by Hamish | July 26, 2007 12:38 PM

It's all so silly...no of this matters. Everyone who is going to vote already knows who they are going to vote for. People vote party affiliation, the individual does not matter.

Posted by Peter | July 26, 2007 12:42 PM

I am not sure how you some of you could even say that having direct talks with our foes is a bad thing. that is the way to peace, look at all the enemies we have since Bush came into power, and all some of you could say is that they are our enemies and we should talk to them. you must be crazy to even think twice when choosing Clinton as a possible candidate. Lets get a changem, lets start fresh and lets go with OBAMA!

Posted by Jonathan | July 26, 2007 12:44 PM

Doug R, you are dumber than a post. The North Koreans developed their program as a result of talking to the Clinton administration which got totally hoodwinked as to what the cretin was up to.

Posted by bob | July 26, 2007 12:49 PM

Doug R, you are dumber than a post. The North Koreans developed their program as a result of talking to the Clinton administration which got totally hoodwinked as to what the cretin was up to.

Posted by bob | July 26, 2007 12:49 PM

I think this country is weaker today, then it was on Dec 7th,1941.We are not united as a people,our representatives in congress andin the senate, seem intent at winning seats, instead of what's good ,for the country.That's why a dicator like Chavez comes to our country and spews his hatred of America.Bush has been a disaster,but he'll be gone in a year or so,the problems will remain. Immigration,border security,ISLAMIC terrorists, are not going to go away, and joining hands,singing over the rainbow, is not going help.
If obama was white,he'd be laughed off the stage. He has no experience, answers with sound bites,and frankly scares the hell out of me.What also scares me is neither party has any candidate who inspires trust and hope for the future.

Posted by Mike | July 26, 2007 12:54 PM

Who says that we have to pick from any of these losers on either side. It's like picking which needle to have stuck in your arm for a tetnus shot. Which one will hurt us less. We all should vote for someone new. No more carrer politicians. Its enough already. Period. No one is satisfied with our government at this point in our history. We all have conservative and liberal views in our lives. We need a change from the normal candidates and parties and we need it soon. Can any one say the don't feel the same way?

Posted by Sam | July 26, 2007 12:55 PM

Hey Bob (yes u bu* that posted around 12.49pm)
Do u know that N.Korea has closed her nuke plants? Do you know it was becos we talked to them and we, the chinese, russians, japs an south koreans agreed to some concessions?
I say talk first, if they concede, then we concede a little (sending them tanks of crude oil is way better than having them lob nukes over japan (perhaps one of our best allies) and towards our western coast. Then and only if they dont concede..bomb the living daylights out of their asses.
And when u call another poster on these board dumb..remember that morons and mad men think sane people r mad.

Posted by samuel doe | July 26, 2007 12:57 PM

We haven't had dealings with Iran since 1979. How many presidents have we had since then? Why is it always George Bush fault?

Posted by gregg | July 26, 2007 12:57 PM

Both candidates seem to be making what are called "debater's points"--rhetorical flourishes without much substance. Both should deal in their comments the fact that the U.S. is engaging in multi-national talks with Iran over nuclear weapons, and bi-national talks about Iraq.

Posted by Richard L.A. Schaefer | July 26, 2007 1:01 PM

Both candidates seem to be making what are called "debater's points"--rhetorical flourishes without much substance. Both should deal in their comments the fact that the U.S. is engaging in multi-national talks with Iran over nuclear weapons, and bi-national talks about Iraq.

Posted by Richard L.A. Schaefer | July 26, 2007 1:02 PM

You know it's kind of funny. I am a libritarian. I just don't get how these people are just following what these people are saying. You have to form your own opinion and do the research. Listen. The only thing that bugs me are 2 things. One is national healthcare. C'mon people. Don't you understand that if you do this that it will be the biggest mistake we will do. I mean right now I give up 50 of my pay for taxes (fed,state,local). Ok now you want to raise our taxes again, and that's even before you get to national healthcare, aka not reupping on the tax breaks that bush has. So, that means for me that I am in tax bracket one and not 2. Plus, tax credits for kids. After all that, now you have people saying WE NEED NATIONAL HEALTHCARE. So, you now want me to give 75 percent of my check now so that everyone can have national healthcare. I already give 400 to 500 a month to pay for my healthcare for me and the family. Now I have to give more than that so that "everyone" can have healthcare. I don't understand why the insurance companies aren't paying off I mean contributing to the politicians campaigns to stop this nonsense. Next is education. Education is like the #2 expense we have in this country. And the system doesn't work. But, hey let's keep giving them more and see if they can fix it. How about we just start over and find out why it's not working and fix it. I have 2 kids and I will be looking to homeschool. Think about it.

Posted by Ashe | July 26, 2007 1:11 PM

I am a conservative, but I do agree that having a face to face, sit down conversation with those you disagree with is a better solution than ignoring them. Surrounding yourself with your friends is the equvalent of having a table full of yes men. This has been going on far too long. If we are the strongest nation on earth, isn't it time we start to act like it. I'm not advocating a war, but if that is what it comes to, we need to ask ourselves, before we get into it, if we have the stomach to win. We are not out of Iraq because we don't.

Posted by Jeff Gunnet | July 26, 2007 1:13 PM

> People vote party affiliation, the individual does not matter.
Wow, what group of robots are you hanging around with?

Republicans tend to do that more than Democrats, but I don't think the majority of either party's voters are that brainwashed. If you feel that's the case, then you should try to do something about it instead of being so resigned to it.

Talking to our enemies gives us the opportunity to expose their positions, and to let the world form an opinion as to who's right and who's wrong. If our conscience is clear, we should welcome this process, not fear it. It's a way to fight them on our terms (as in, "truth, justice, and the American Way"...we need to reconnect #3 with the first two).

A prime example is the nurses and the doctor who were just released from Libya. They were apparently tortured severely throughout their captivity. This should bring international condemnation of Libya, but the US is in no position to lead the charge, and how many others are avoiding the subject so as not to encourage people to draw the obvious comparisons?

We've lost our moral leadership in the world, because we have no one to articulate the promise. This is Obama's message and it's the most important one out there. The rest is just politics as usual.

Posted by C. Darryl Mattison | July 26, 2007 1:21 PM

Re: autism

Since 1999 thimerosal has almost been completely eliminated from childhood vaccines, yet the number of autism cases has increased dramatically. One has nothing to do with the other.

Posted by brian west | July 26, 2007 1:22 PM

Politics has been reduced to petty name-calling courtesy of the pathetic, petulant, peevish and pedantic democrats. Rather than declaring what they DO stand for, which is their historical problem: they stand for nothing, they bemoan one another for who trying to show some leadership. Obama has some balls trying to liken the Hill-monster to Bush/Cheney when he himself closely emulates the likes of Hugo Chavez or Che with his short but well-documented extreme left antics. Long on good looks, underdog skin color and party affiliation Obama acts like the knight in shining armor when in fact he's nothing but the rotten Sheriff of Liberalham trying to shake down everybody to make us all poorer with his brand of feudal politics. To this I say: piffle!

Posted by Schratboy | July 26, 2007 1:34 PM

I wonder, if Hilary gets elected will she bring back the silverware?

Posted by ITO | July 26, 2007 1:35 PM

Why is it that all these Democrat candidates continue to try and base their credibility on being "different" than George Bush? Do they not realize that "Bush" is not running for re-election. He is finished. Get over it. If you want my vote, tell me what makes you different from "every other candidate who may be running" Democrat, Republican, or whatever. I am tired of hearing how you will do things different from Bush. He's not running. If you think you can win by simply being the anti-Bush candidate, you are seriously misjudging the intelligence of the American electorate.

Posted by Ron Sizemore | July 26, 2007 1:37 PM

Isnt it the policy of the USA not to speak to certain governements? Perhaps Presidents can change these policies, but if it is the policy of the USA perhaps that policy was crafted with knownledge and history in mind and labeling the stance of the USA to a particular president seems short sighted.

If Obama and Clinton, and whomever else you care to name, wishes to speak to a country then I would hope our collective governmental bodies that handle such matters would approach these countries in correct manners that achieve our goals rather than bolster Iran, Korean, et al.

No president would just go sit down face to face with any of these people.

Posted by Chris | July 26, 2007 1:38 PM

"When is Hillary going to discuss the autism epidemic from thimerosal being injected into babies in her vaccine program?"

Probably as soon as GWB discusses why he plans to veto the ban On mercury In vaccines.
http://infowars.net/articles/july2007/200707Mercury.htm

Posted by Steve | July 26, 2007 1:42 PM

Political correctness will be the end of us all. You cannot negotiate with terroroist countries. They dont give a damn about our political process, they just want to kill you and me because we are infidels it's that simple. It will not matter who is in office a Republican or a Democrat and they could care less what stance they have on any topic. You liberal morans better get a grip or we all are going to suffer. Does this staement mean anything to you "United We Stand Dived We Fall" we'll we are in a free fall right now and the terrorist have got thier popcorn watching the show. What is the Democratic Party or Republican Party going to do about that?

Tired of this .............

Posted by Scott | July 26, 2007 1:44 PM

"Since 1999 thimerosal has almost been completely eliminated from childhood vaccines, yet the number of autism cases has increased dramatically. One has nothing to do with the other."

No idea where you're from, but not only has thimerosal NOT been eliminated from vaccines, it's just one of many that have been added.

* Thimerosal (a mercury derivative)
* Ethylene glycol (antifreeze)
* Phenol (a disinfectant dye)
* Aluminum
* Benzethonium chloride (a disinfectant)
* Formaldehyde (a preservative and disinfectant)

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/07/19/75-000-offered-for-md-to-publicly-drink-vaccine-additives.aspx

Posted by Andy | July 26, 2007 1:47 PM

Increasingly it looks like Obama is the sophisticated one here, with the judgment to be President, and Clinton is the simplistic one, giving politically rote answers and using soundbite slogans to slog her way through complex issues. (Being careful of course to include the word EXPERIENCE in order to build her brand)

Score one for Obama. Score 100 for Clinton's image as a traditional Washington politician.

Posted by Tony Viardo | July 26, 2007 2:08 PM

Steve, way to go on answering a question with but but but GWB.

Anyone else notice how Obama never answers questions at debates? Or how he says one thing then when you look at his voting record it says how truly far off to the left he is?

Posted by Kit | July 26, 2007 2:08 PM

Obama is a classic representation of what may well be our nation's (perhaps the entire world's) biggest problem. People who think they can appoint themselves judge and jury of all past ways of doing things, declare them to be failures, and then try to convince people that they have managed to find the new ideas and ways that will carry us forward into a better future. They expect us to believe that they are so amazing that could have found a better way than all that have come before within a mere couple decades. For them and those who will follow them, real qualifications don't matter and nor do the facts, let alone history. They are the modern liberals, the progressives, the practicioners of what is I kindly call one of the greatest mistakes of the last century. We must ride out these people and their amazingly disastrous world view as there are so many of them and their ways infest so many major institutions, but nothing says we need to allow them to run the country.

Posted by Ken Menzies | July 26, 2007 2:12 PM

I hate Hillary and would Never vote for her (she is a socialist true and true) or Obama (because of his stance on immigration). But what EVERYONE IS MISSING is the End of the statement that Hillary made. She said she would not meet with these various leaders "in the first year". Another way the liberal media trys to sway things toward their personal views and beliefs or candidate that they wish to see in the white house. They take things out of context or conveniently leave things out. That is what she said and I just re-played the actual sound-bite 4 times to make sure. Typical liberal media bs.

Posted by RonnieRiver | July 26, 2007 2:17 PM

Heather,

Obama is already on the record saying he would support military action as a last resort to prevent Iran from going nuculear.

In all liklihood that is what it's going to take too because unfortunately the leaders we are dealing with are just as crazy and determined to accomplish their agenda as President Bush.

Although he would never say it publicly, I think Obama understands this too, but does he really want history to show that he didn't do everything in his power to avoid the situation? I don't think so.

This is why he is an advocate of discussions at the highest level before we have to resort to that.

Posted by GP | July 26, 2007 2:17 PM

There already is an organization where world leaders talk to each other. It's called the UN, and we've already seen how ineffective they are. While they make resolution after resolution, and stall and make excuses when they're not followed, rogue states continue on. How many "resolutions" have they made on Iran so far?

There problem is they don't enforce anything, and we often get left holding the bag.

Obama is naive if he thinks that having a face to face will help. Oh, and while they're saying it's "this administration's policy" to not talk to rogue state? How about Cuba (since Kennedy, and through Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush2), Iran (since 1979, Libya (till our sanctions worked and they discontinued their nuke program)

And Hillary is naive if she thinks she can do better. You have to prove you have the stomach for to go in and fight (and win!) a war, no matter how low the poll numbers go. It's not about popularity, it's about what's right! GWB knew this and "spent his political capital." The Clintons pulled out at the first sign of dropping polls. It's a war. People die. It's going to happen. War by it's very nature is not a neat business. There are going to be accidents. There's going to be friendly fire injury. Civilians, despite best efforts, will wind up getting killed.

In this particular war, a lot of the casualties are coming from people who have no problem killing themselves as long as they can take people down with them. It's tough to guard against that!

So right now, we have Mrs. Bill Clinton, who will pull out at the first sign of low poll numbers, or if Cindy Sheehan knocks at her door; Obama, who will try to talk them to death; and Edwards who will, if he's true to what he says about what he would have done for Katrina, have meeting after meeting with the people who are supposed to be doing the work, so that nothing gets done.

And these are the first tier? God help us!

Posted by Joseph | July 26, 2007 2:24 PM

Obama was asked the question before Clinton, and his lack of experience showed. The reason he's yelling so loudly is because he knows that he got caught. His only hope is to try to deflect criticism by saying that preconditions were implied. Obama is not ready...yet. Clinton is the most experienced candidate...I hope she wins the nomination and chooses him as her running mate

Posted by Mark Ramsey | July 26, 2007 2:24 PM

Thimerosal is still in the flu vaccine at very high concentrations (about 250 times higher than the mercury in hazardous waste). The flu vaccine is recommended (pushed hard) to pregnant women and neonates (since 2002). Aluminum (also a neurotoxin) has replaced thimerosal in many of the vaccines at much higher concentrations. Several studies (vaccinated vs. unvaccinated) have unequivocally shown that unvaccinated children are much healthier and have much lower incidence (approaching genetic, ie. non-environmental incidence) of autism. The Japanese do not vaccinate at ages less than two (with one exception) because they are aware of the implications injecting toxins into neonates. All vaccines are voluntary in Japan as in all Western European nations.
The vaccine protocol is screwedup- it must be changed. We cannot get that change from Hillary- she would have to admit her historical error.

Posted by Toni T | July 26, 2007 2:26 PM

Hey anti-vaccine freak, give it a rest.

Posted by mark | July 26, 2007 2:29 PM

Foreign policy is becoming a bigger deal as we become an increasingly connected, global community. What would an isolationist stance do but make us increasingly ignorant of our neighbors?

If the leader of the 'free world' meets with some heads of state and not others, what does that say about the sovereignty of government and the world social status of whole populations?

Maybe the next president could rely largely on the judgement of advisors for foreign policy, much like Bush did with WMD and Iraq, and LB Johnson did with Vietnam..

Posted by sidMerid | July 26, 2007 2:42 PM

Regardless of how the media spins it, history
does not lie. The U.S. has no more enemies that
hate us then we did in the past. Other counties
have always hated the u.s. It comes with being
the top dog.
Seriously, who hates us now, that didn't 10-20 years ago?

France? Germany? Spain? No, we actually have really good relationships with these countries.

Read your history before getting paranoid.
Also take most news with a grain of salt.

Also, we ARE the worlds police (and should be proud of it) because we are the most moral and free country in the world. No other country in the world gives it's people more freedom and respect than the U.S.

Posted by Raven | July 26, 2007 2:48 PM

Hillary Clinton was president of the Wellesley College Young Republicans her Freshman year. Why do I say this? She loves to change sides on every issue. Most recently....Iraq. In the most recent debate she says she is totally against talking to foreign leaders or at least is hesitant to. I think that is rediculous by the way...Heather. But she did say earlier in October what we wanted to hear and what Obama stated in the debate:

Clinton's earlier response to same exact issue:

"Direct negotiations with countries like Iran and Syria are not a sign of weakness, they are a sign of ledership...The Bush Administration's refusal to talk to anyone on the evil side as some have called that idealistic, but I call it dangerously unrealistic."

Hillary Clinton, October 31, 2006, Council of Foreign Relations in NYC

Now what does she do? She sides with the Republican party and says we should not talk to foreign leaders. Is she crazy? I mean she voted for the war too. I am sorry, a woman president would be cool, I agree...but not this one. She is just another John Kerry in disguise of a woman with no plan. She is just very good at saying what the public wants to hear at a particular time. Obama is the man for change.

Posted by Shaun | July 26, 2007 3:10 PM

Seriously,

Anyone who criticizes Obama's lack of experience is neglecting the fact that America voted GWBush into office.

How experienced was he? Obama obviously has more experience with communication and intelligence in general.

A lack of experience can be seen as a breath of fresh air.

Experience practically equals corruption. We need someone who will bring new mindsets to American politics. We can't usher in someone from the good old boy network and expect them to give us what we need most: Positive radical change.

Obama is the most likely candidate to provide that.

Posted by voiceoreason | July 26, 2007 3:14 PM

We keep talking about Hillary's experience. The only experience Hillary has in an executive position was her establishment of Hillarycare. From any perspective, that has to be viewed as a disaster. It was even more of a disaster in that that program went out of its way to push vaccines containing more than hazardous waste levels of mercury on neonates, resulting in the worst iatrogenic epidemic in modern history.
It's something noone wishes to talk about, perhaps because the results are so repugnant. But if Hillary is to become President, isn't this a very relevant topic?

Posted by Toni T | July 26, 2007 3:19 PM

If you wonder why Hillary has not said anything inalmost 48 hrs its called "when you're in a hole stop digging".

This did not turn out the way she hoped. Now she has to shed the Bush-lite label and the new focus on her Iraq judgement.

Posted by lyn | July 26, 2007 3:30 PM

Ron Paul is the only option is 08. We need a non-interevention foreign policy, and stop taking sides on these issues which only brings us events like 911. Restore the constitution!! RON PAUL 08!!

Posted by Bill M | July 26, 2007 3:30 PM

Ron Paul is the only option in 08. We need a non-interevention foreign policy, we need to listen to the founders, no entangling alliances. Restore the constitution!! RON PAUL 08!!

Posted by Bill M | July 26, 2007 3:31 PM

When you find yourself on the operating table, and your choice of surgeon is a experienced surgeon or a first year med student the choice is obvious.

Because bush is a failure, we shouldn't fill the most important job in the world, with a game show host.

Posted by Mike | July 26, 2007 3:35 PM

If you don't see that Hillary and Obama are engaing in a bit of political one-upmanship then you are NAIVE!!! . At this stage of the campaign the the stage is being set for the dirty politics that is bound to follow , albeit earlier than anticipated. That being said Obama, is out of his league if he tries to compete politically with Hillary. Hillarys' team is vastly more knowledgable and seasoned than Obamas' crowd of idealists. After all she is being advised by that master politician , hubby Bill. Yes Obama is being naive if he wants to sit down and tell Iran that he disapproves of their nuclear proliferation, and he will reassert our undying loyalty to Israel.. grow up Barak! They'll tell us to stick it. and we are back to square one. And this is the guy we want leading our country? Wise up. I wouldn't vote for him for dog catcher

Posted by Dan Broad | July 26, 2007 3:42 PM

One thing that is come out positive out of this mess is that Americans in general have increased their knowledge about the world besides their own.
Gone are the day when you can say, "Do as I say or be bombed".
We need to think outside the box, get somebody intelligent, who reads, reacts at the time of need and not sit stunned 7 minutes when hell breaks loose.
A pro anybody stance will only create us and them.
I think Hillary is making hay in the Bill shadow. Obama articulates and proves his own, humility seems to be his virtue.

I have a dream "OBAMA is the president"

Posted by SA | July 26, 2007 4:08 PM

H Clinton tarvelled the world with Chelsea on our dime - she accomplished nothing but spending our money and getting her little girl a to a well travelled education. Now she wants so so very much to be president -- she is changing with the polls just like their presidential days -- as first ladies usually do - will Bill the stud stay in the background with tha world leader's wives when they make head of state diplomatic visits? That should bloster our image and spread VD.
He met my 17 year old daughter and two of her girlfriends on a street in London and was coming on to her (them)- he is a sad old man - none of these women will be safe.
And she is a sad old lady - stuck with him and continuing to live as a bitch trying to prove she matters and she doesn't and never will - H ole gal - you can con the people for eight years but not sixteen - go bake some cookies and become useful.