Obama, Clinton in war of words

We need to bring back George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, I deplore the kind of caharacterless behavior to win the white House!

The Dems are shooting in the legs! I deplore even more the clintons for starting such a war of negative words!

Governor Rendell, who endorsed Clinton, gave her a two week filing extension because she could not get it done on time. He cited: snow. Gee, let us hope there is no blizzard when that phone rings at 3AM. If Hillary were so knowlegable about our National Security she would denounce her MECHa friends in California. I doubt if even Obama is fully aware of the threat to our citizens by the group that plans to cede 5 states from the nation, once they get enough of their members elected to high positions in government. That little battle is already begun with the Minute Men in border states. The Latino/Latina elected officials that want unity endorsed Obama. Obama has addressed the issues of "Native Americans". The Lakotas have already formally filed their succession papers.

In addition, Senator Clinton seems unaware of global hatred towards the USA due to our war of aggression in Iraq. As a Marine Iraqi war vet said: for every 2 or 3 enemy we kill, we wake up 10 or 12 more. The innocent children dead in Iraq gratis our bombs, however, were not my enemy. They posed no threat to my security. Those angered by what is seen as US "Christian terrorists" has made me less safe. Hillary's yes vote to the Iran Resolution shows, she plans to make us at even a higher risk of a united global effort to squash the US 'imperialistic" bullies. Her experience is "we acted on faulty intelligence". Who's intelligence is she acting on with her desire, with McCain, to bomb Iran? Hillary should cut out her useless words meant to deceive and try honesty. She is effectively destroying the election with her power quest.

Barack Obama has no room to say Hillary Clinton is untested on foreign policy or anything else. He would be wise to try and speak facts about the experience we are still trying to find out he has in anything, and we do mean anything, much less foreign policy.

well, looks like Clinton wins and the nation loses. She is successfully drawing the debate into the gutter. It won't win her the nomination, but it might destroy the party and pave the way for the GOP. -- She is a monster.

Obama isn't about to be lectured on anything; he thinks he knows it all already. He's too good for LBJ's old job apparently.

What I want to know is when are Kennedy and Kerry going to bend to the will of the voters of Massachusetts and change their superdelegate votes to Clinton. Do they think they are aristocrats? Yes, of course they do.

The 3 am commercial smacks of another Willie Horton ad! It's time to put the Clinton's win at all cost strategy to rest and send both of them into retirement. The two fisted punch of negative ads with the "olive branch" of let's run together is disgusting. Yes we can! Yes we will! Obama for President!

If Rush Limbaugh really did have an effect on the outcome of OH and/or TX, this is the result; i.e. Mrs. Bill Clinton thinks her attacks on Obama got her some new life so now she'll do anything, say anything and basically tell the Democratic Party that if she can't have the nomination (because she deserves it after standing by her man) then she doesn't mind if McCain wins. She is like a spoiled kid in kindergarten who never learned how to play well together. When she said that McCain and she are the only ones ready to be the Commander in Chief, all dems should have left her bandwagon. Does she really want that quote to be used against Obama in the general election when he wins the Dem primary? Yes she does. She's very egocentric. I will vote for Obama in November; if Mrs. Bill Clinton is the nominee, I'll vote for McCain.

I want to know if Obama will be tough enough on Muslim countries like Iran who is ambitious to have nuclear bomb to test it out in Israel. I sure doubt it. Blood is known to be thicker than water. He has pure Muslim blood.

When JFK was running, people were complaining that Pope will be running the country. Now no body is saying that Ahmadijad of Iran and Bin Laden will be running the US. I bet Muslim countries are rejoicing the moment. Without one of them, we would not have a president.

Hillary is so manipulative; I'm sick of the Clinton machine. She has given Barack Obama no choice but to fight back and focus on her campaign's bamboozlement. It is amazing how all of this time, Barack Obama has risen above the "old poltics", and she took advantage of his even temperant and started slinging mud. I'm happy that the gloves are off, b/c it is time for Barack Obama to give this woman and her machine a TKO! America is sick and tired of the same manipulating, hoodwicked, lying campaign the Clintons have given. Enough is Enough

Obama 08 - saying YES to him, mean you are saying NO to the old poltics!

All these stupid and senseless arguments between Obama and Clinton will surely give the Republicans the White House again in November. I have been suffering under the Bush regime for the past 4 years as all my technology work has been outsourced and I am a Diabetic with no Health Insurance as I can no longer afford it. My 2 adult children are also in the IT field and as also been affected by all the outsourcing and the devaluation of IT wages.

In all fairness and to get rid of the Republican government, Obama and Clinton should unite by agreeing at this point that at the end of the primary the person ahead should be the nominated candidate and the runner-up be the VP candidate.

mate

Obama camp questions HRC's experience
Posted: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 9:59 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: 2008, Security, Clinton, Obama

From NBC's Mark Murray
In one of its sharpest rebukes of Clinton's foreign policy experience, the Obama campaign has released a memo arguing that Clinton herself hasn't passed the commander-in-chief test. "When your entire campaign is based upon a claim of experience, it is important that you have evidence to support that claim. Hillary Clinton’s argument that she has passed “the commander-in-chief test” is simply not supported by her record," Obama adviser Greg Craig says in the memo.

"There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton played an important domestic policy role when she was first lady," Craig continues. "It is well known, for example, that she led the failed effort to pass universal health insurance. There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. he did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue -- not at 3 AM or at any other time of day."

Below is the full memo...

To: Interested Parties
From: Greg Craig, former director, Policy Planning Office, U.S. State Department
RE: Senator Clinton’s claim to be experienced in foreign policy: Just words?
DA: March 11, 2008

When your entire campaign is based upon a claim of experience, it is important that you have evidence to support that claim. Hillary Clinton’s argument that she has passed “the Commander- in-Chief test” is simply not supported by her record.

There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton played an important domestic policy role when she was First Lady. It is well known, for example, that she led the failed effort to pass universal health insurance. There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue – not at 3 AM or at any other time of day.

When asked to describe her experience, Senator Clinton has cited a handful of international incidents where she says she played a central role. But any fair-minded and objective judge of these claims – i.e., by someone not affiliated with the Clinton campaign – would conclude that Senator Clinton’s claims of foreign policy experience are exaggerated.

Northern Ireland:
Senator Clinton has said, “I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland.” It is a gross overstatement of the facts for her to claim even partial credit for bringing peace to Northern Ireland. She did travel to Northern Ireland, it is true. First Ladies often travel to places that are a focus of U.S. foreign policy. But at no time did she play any role in the critical negotiations that ultimately produced the peace. As the Associated Press recently reported, “[S]he was not directly involved in negotiating the Good Friday peace accord.” With regard to her main claim that she helped bring women together, she did participate in a meeting with women, but, according to those who know best, she did not play a pivotal role. The person in charge of the negotiations, former Senator George Mitchell, said that “[The First Lady] was one of many people who participated in encouraging women to get involved, not the only one.”

News of Senator Clinton’s claims has raised eyebrows across the ocean. Her reference to an important meeting at the Belfast town hall was debunked. Her only appearance at the Belfast City Hall was to see Christmas lights turned on. She also attended a 50-minute meeting which, according to the Belfast Daily Telegraph’s report at the time, “[was] a little bit stilted, a little prepared at times." Brian Feeney, an Irish author and former politician, sums it up: “The road to peace was carefully documented, and she wasn’t on it.”

Bosnia:
Senator Clinton has pointed to a March 1996 trip to Bosnia as proof that her foreign travel involved a life-risking mission into a war zone. She has described dodging sniper fire. While she did travel to Bosnia in March 1996, the visit was not a high-stakes mission to a war zone. On March 26, 1996, the New York Times reported that “Hillary Rodham Clinton charmed American troops at a U.S.O. show here, but it didn’t hurt that the singer Sheryl Crow and the comedian Sinbad were also on the stage.”

Kosovo:
Senator Clinton has said, “I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo.” It is true that, as First Lady, she traveled to Macedonia and visited a Kosovar refugee camp. It is also true that she met with government officials while she was there. First Ladies frequently meet with government officials. Her claim to have “negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo,” however, is not true. Her trip to Macedonia took place on May 14, 1999. The borders were opened the day before, on May 13, 1999.

The negotiations that led to the opening of the borders were accomplished by the people who ordinarily conduct negotiations with foreign governments – U.S. diplomats. President Clinton’s top envoy to the Balkans, former Ambassador Robert Gelbard, said, “I cannot recall any involvement by Senator Clinton in this issue.” Ivo Daalder worked on the Clinton Administration’s National Security Council and wrote a definitive history of the Kosovo conflict. He recalls that “she had absolutely no role in the dirty work of negotiations.”

Rwanda:
Last year, former President Clinton asserted that his wife pressed him to intervene with U.S. troops to stop the Rwandan genocide. When asked about this assertion, Hillary Clinton said it was true. There is no evidence, however, to suggest that this ever happened. Even those individuals who were advocating a much more robust U.S. effort to stop the genocide did not argue for the use of U.S. troops. No one recalls hearing that Hillary Clinton had any interest in this course of action. Based on a fair and thorough review of National Security Council deliberations during those tragic months, there is no evidence to suggest that U.S. military intervention was ever discussed. Prudence Bushnell, the Assistant Secretary of State with responsibility for Africa, has recalled that there was no consideration of U.S. military intervention.

At no time prior to her campaign for the presidency did Senator Clinton ever make the claim that she supported intervening militarily to stop the Rwandan genocide. It is noteworthy that she failed to mention this anecdote – urging President Clinton to intervene militarily in Rwanda – in her memoirs. President Clinton makes no mention of such a conversation with his wife in his memoirs. And Madeline Albright, who was Ambassador to the United Nations at the time, makes no mention of any such event in her memoirs.

Hillary Clinton did visit Rwanda in March 1998 and, during that visit, her husband apologized for America’s failure to do more to prevent the genocide.

China:
Senator Clinton also points to a speech that she delivered in Beijing in 1995 as proof of her ability to answer a 3 AM crisis phone call. It is strange that Senator Clinton would base her own foreign policy experience on a speech that she gave over a decade ago, since she so frequently belittles Barack Obama’s speeches opposing the Iraq War six years ago. Let there be no doubt: she gave a good speech in Beijing, and she stood up for women’s rights. But Senator Obama’s opposition to the War in Iraq in 2002 is relevant to the question of whether he, as Commander-in-Chief, will make wise judgments about the use of military force. Senator Clinton’s speech in Beijing is not.

Senator Obama’s speech opposing the war in Iraq shows independence and courage as well as good judgment. In the speech that Senator Clinton says does not qualify him to be Commander in Chief, Obama criticized what he called “a rash war . . . a war based not on reason, but on passion, not on principle, but on politics.” In that speech, he said prophetically: “[E]ven a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.” He predicted that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would “fan the flames of the Middle East,” and “strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda.” He urged the United States first to “finish the fight with Bin Laden and al Qaeda.”

If the U.S. government had followed Barack Obama’s advice in 2002, we would have avoided one of the greatest foreign policy catastrophes in our nation’s history. Some of the most “experienced” men in national security affairs – Vice President Cheney and Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others – led this nation into that catastrophe. That lesson should teach us something about the value of judgment over experience. Longevity in Washington, D.C. does not guarantee either wisdom of judgment.

Conclusion:
The Clinton campaign’s argument is nothing more than mere assertion, dramatized in a scary television commercial with a telephone ringing in the middle of the night. There is no support for or substance in the claim that Senator Clinton has passed “the Commander-in-Chief test.” That claim – as the TV ad – consists of nothing more than making the assertion, repeating it frequently to the voters and hoping that they will believe it.

On the most critical foreign policy judgment of our generation – the War in Iraq – Senator Clinton voted in support of a resolution entitled “The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of U.S. Military Force Against Iraq.” As she cast that vote, she said: “This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.” In this campaign, Senator Clinton has argued – remarkably – that she wasn’t actually voting for war, she was voting for diplomacy. That claim is no more credible than her other claims of foreign policy experience. The real tragedy is that we are still living with the terrible consequences of her misjudgment. The Bush Administration continues to cite that resolution as its authorization – like a blank check – to fight on with no end in sight.

Barack Obama has a very simple case. On the most important commander in chief test of our generation, he got it right, and Senator Clinton got it wrong. In truth, Senator Obama has much more foreign policy experience than either Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan had when they were elected. Senator Obama has worked to confront 21st century challenges like proliferation and genocide on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He possesses the personal attributes of a great leader – an even temperament, an open-minded approach to even the most challenging problems, a willingness to listen to all views, clarity of vision, the ability to inspire, conviction and courage.

And Barack Obama does not use false charges and exaggerated claims to play politics with national security.

Clinton campaign questions Obama's [fill in the blank] - Obama's camp quickly responds, "I'm rubber and you're glue, what bounces off me sticks to you."

If Obama continues to deflect rather than respond in kind, then Clinton will continue her slow climb up to parity in Delegates. If Obama never returns a serve, the point goes to Clinton and the slow and steady may win the match and game.

WHAT ARE MR. OBAMA'S ACCOMPLISHMENTS? We can't simply gather around, smoke the peace pipe, sing koombayah and worship him as the next Messiah who would deliver us out of the economic mess and this war with simply a touch of his magical wand. And if he's elected and made it all the way to the White House, all those individuals who make this happen (i.e: George Soros and chronies), AND Mrs. Obama will run this country and make Mr. Obama their puppet. HA! The sad part is, regardless of his qualifications, he may win over HRC. Or else, Mr. Al Sharpton will threaten to march down and pull the race card. Don't worry Mr. Obama, the press, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etc got your back to ensure you make it. Our voices will remain unheard!!!

Maybe Hillary's right....after all, she was there when the phone calls came in late at night....perhaps something like this.....
ring ring :
"uh, hello? Yes, this is the president. No, I can't make it right now. Yes, ok, lets make it in the cabinet room at 2."
Hillary..."Honey, was that the Kremlin?"
Bill..."No, that was Monica requesting a conference, says it's important."

Come on Mrs. Clinton, hanging around the white house for four years doesn't count as foreign policy experience. Hmmm, why aren't you a senator from Arkansas anyway?

Tabet:
Either I am reading this wrong, but it looks to me as the obama camp sent out the negative message in this article and the Clinton camp responded. Of course obama can do no wrong so might just as well blame Hillary!
Just like this race is not racial!

Well, I guess for the first time in my life, I will vote republican if obama wins!

As a Democrat, I'm slightly sad to see that neither one has a chance. As a well educated progressive person who seeks out hard news and knows more about the records of both of these hypocritical candidates than anyone I know, I can only say "vote Nader." Neither one of these stooges has a chance anyway. Both have completely alienated each other's constituencies, and neither has expended any political capital to do anything remotely courageous, including protect our fragile Constitution.
Please read "Free Lunch", "Failed States", by Noam Chomsky, "Blowback", by Chalmers Johnson, anything by Naomi Klein, and "Barack Obama, The Making of A Washington Machine", by Ken Silverstein, if you don't know just how bad things really are. We really ought to seek out real news before voting.

Finally the Obama campaign addresses Clinton's experience credentials. This is not character attack but entirely issue-based. She claims foreign policy experience. Where is it? She could silence his question by listing her relevant experience. Instead she resorts to her "just words" mantra.

My question is: what leadership experience does Hillary Clinton have? Her campaign staff has been widely noted for internal acrimony. Obama's campaign has been widely noted for organization and management superior to that of Clinton's. Obama's excellent leadership skills can be seen in the running of his campaign. Clinton's poor leadership skills can be seen in the running of hers.

Clinton campaign is a disgrace, filled with vitriolic comments and fueld by greed for more power. And we do not need a Bill Clinton loose in the Whitehouse

i think we got a real good taste of the clintons thirst for power whit the M L affaire, she took it like a man, for the country? or the presidency?

Hillary Clinton has seriously hurt the democrats chances of winning in November with her dirty mudslinging tactics. I was a supporter of her before her "kitchen sink" tactics, but now I find myself ever more offended by her. For her to say John McCain would make a better president than a fellow democrat is shallow and short sighted. This woman does not deserve to be the first woman president.

Clintonism at it's best.
Lies and deceipt.
After Bill's embarrassing Presidency I am stupified that she is where she is today,
running for the PRESIDENCY!! Shocking.
Are there no others?
ARE THERE NO OTHERS?!?!?!?

Barack Obama is a good man and despite the youth he brings, at least he is not beholden to the current scheming pathetic political machine that dominates our current federal gov't.
Perhaps he can be a force of change.
Perhaps he would get swallowed up by the status quo Washington power base.
The future is in doubt with the choices we have now.

If the two of them don't stop, they will discredit each other to the point that few people will vote for either of them in the general election. All McCain has to do is sit on the sidelines while the Democrats destroy themselves. Both of them need to stop this character assination program they've started. Otherwise, there will be no hope for the Democrats in November.

I am so disgusted with Hillary Clinton's campaign. I once imagined she could be a reasonably good president, but her polarizing tactics (and those of her supporters) have turned me completely away from her campaign. I am heartened that Obama is able to make truthful, pointed comments to shine a light on the ridiculous nonsense her campaign has begun to spew.

All of this is laughable. We all need to sit back and watch the feckless behavior of both of them. Then, vote for McCain in November. To gain trust, you have to be credible. Neither Hillary nor Barack are qualified. The Democrats really need to examine their roots and come back to the center. Obviously the left wing of the Democratic Party has been in charge too long. They bring too much baggage to the table.

This is worst kind of war they are waging !!
Mr. Obama better answer the questions raised by opponents with your PROVEN RECORD instead of shooting false MEMOs

Nothing is gained by mutually assured destruction for both Clinton and Obama. Both are very competent, intelligent, and ambitious individuals. Both are equally qualified or unqualified -- as neither has governed a state and neither has been a President -- making Presidential decisions. Both, I assume, are convinced they can do the job and can learn. For the sake of the country, I would hope that both support our men and women in uniform and love the US. The nastiness oozing out from behind the doors can only harm the Democratic Party. I am waiting for the first one to show that he or she is greater than the sum of his/her ambitions.

Hell hath no fury like a Clinton scorned... I think the more relevant question is, "Where is Bill Clinton at 3:00AM when the phone rings?!?".

Who do I want answering the phone at 3:00AM? The TERMINATOR, give me Arnold!

Hillary has told us two things with her recent behavior including the mud-slinging attacks that have helped McCain.

1) She feels entitled to the presidency no matter what it costs.

2) Her ambitions are more important than what is good for the party and the American people!

Hillary's camp should stop the negative attacks and the lies about her achievements like saying that she had a major part in the Irish peace process which is a proven lie. This behavior has pushed me, and many others to whom I have spoken about these issues, to go from feeling like I would vote for either candidate, to feeling like I cannot vote for Hillary under any circumstance!

Barack and Hilary need to be thinking about a 16 year plan of recovery for our country . It lwill take at least that long of steady anual accomplishments to be helpful to our grandchildren and restore a feeling of confidence and respect for our people . Barack and Hilary you need to talk between each other and you need to pray for divine guidance if you really love our country. This is a great time to be of service. It would be a loving accomplishment to begin with a medical program to help our children and elderly........

You have a great opportunity barack and Hilary......Don't waste it.

God Bless you.

very for our country. It will take at least that long of steady accomplishments to

I thought Hillary's "Actions" on how she originally handled Bill... and how she has him under control now (not!) ... and her "decisiveness" on going after the women who had proof of Bills imoral conduct... using libel, lies, and anything at hand to protect Clinton power is clear evidence of her ability to be Comander and chief ... I especially like the tone of her voice when she gets commanding!

Mrs. Clinton's campaign derides Senator Obama's record, yet she and her husband publicly ask for him to become her vice president! The smell of her desperation is in the air.

And to set the record straight, because of the so-called "Texas Two-Step" of primary plus caucus, it's not totally accurate to say that Mrs. Clinton "won" that state. It is true that she won the primary by a very slim margin. But in the caucus, Senator Obama won, and consequently, he won more delegates.

Clinton is grasping at straws. Barack Obama has more legislative experience than she does and she knows it. When Barack was in the Illinois State House, he passed legislation that lowered taxes for middle income families. In the US Senate, he worked with Dick Lugar to prevent loose Nukes in the old Soviet Union block countries, and on the Veteran's Administration Committee, he has worked to secure benefits for our nations war hero's. Barack was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review, and he taught Constitutional Law, has worked as a Civil Rights Attorney and a community organizer. The truth is Senator Obama has a wealth of expertise and experience. And unlike Hillary Clinton, in my opinion Obama is a statesman the likes of which we have not seen since RFK.

Way to go Barack! Calling attention to the facts is not negative, and its what informed voters have been grumbling about Clinton for a long time. Judging by her reaction, Clinton's team is afraid that this will hit a nerve.

Claiming 35 years of experience is an invitation to questions. Defending child rapists by suggesting a child seduced her assailant is not good experience preparing for the Presidency!

"he voted for Dick Cheney’s energy bill loaded with new tax breaks for oil companies"

- um, didn't Clinton vote for that bill too?

"But his top economic adviser assured the Canadian government that he wouldn’t really follow through."

- that attack was already proven false. Clinton's advisor (who was approached by Canadian authorities, not the other way around) told the Canadian government that he didn't want to abandon NAFTA, he wanted to improve labor laws and environmental protections in it. And that is exactly what he's said publicly.

it is amazing that being married to a president makes you ready to be president. Was Nancy regan ready, how about Barbara Bush? I'd love for Laura Bush to come out and say she is ready to be president.

This election is so exciting. It seems to have pushed the Iraq War, the coming Iran war, the depleted uranium weapons pollution, the inadequate VA system, the coming Venezuela war, the Darfur tragedy, the trade imbalance with China, the corruption in Washington, the falling dollar, the crumbling national infrastructure, the murder rate, the overloaded legal system, the impossible prison system, the unemployment problem, the widening gap between rich and poor, and the problem with cellphones destroying the honeybee population (and our food supply) off the front page. Hmm.

Tabet: I fear that the day of people like that is over! There is not a politician out there with the intelligence and speaking ability of Lincoln. The man's words can still move people. These politicians, the whole lot, are not even fit to be the court jesters of olden times...Our politicians are a bunch of losers who speak badly, suffer from arrested development, and, for the most part, could not be successful in a legitimate business enterprise. George Bush is at the bottom of this barrel...he can't ever read a speech, let alone speak on his own or think on his feet. Regardless of who you would vote for, or which party you support, it is becoming more apparent that they are all worthless...I am glad to see someone else wish for a better class of politicians, also!

Here we go again, putting up with Hillary's misrepresentations, not only about her rivals but also about her own executive experience. If she has such a sterling record, why did Bill keep it sealed until after the election? What are they hiding in their tax returns? Who is really funding her campaign - the same foreign inetrests funding Bill's library? How dimwitted do the Clinton's think we are?

Intelligent voters should be asking questions and demanding answers. With Hillary, meaningful answers are never forthcoming. The secretive, fact-twisting republican playbook old school attack politics has to come to an end. If Hillary and Bill want to do what's best for the party and the country they will bow our gracefully and go home with whatever little honor they have left.

Ahh Tabet. This is TAME. Read your American history. Thus far no ones mothers have been insulted as in the past.

It is interesting that Clinton is the one who pushed NAFTA in his presidency and since then we have been told how wonderful globalization is for the country. Of course, you will note Boeing cried foul, but no one is crying foul for those worker who lost their jobs to over sea workers, or to worker in South of the border.
Obama, three words of wisdom "walk the talk."
Clinton, a few words for you, "you would make a great vice-president.

We democrats are now on the way to losing an unlosable election. In the end, half of us are going to stay home.

I want to be fair, but anyone following this must admit that Clinton started it long ago. Obama resisted all the way until last week, when he was forced to come out swinging because he was looking wimpy. He had no choice.

It's clear that she couldn't care less who becomes president if it isn't her.

I never thought I would find myself writing such things. I never thought I would have a problem voting for either of them. Shame on Hillary for forcing the competition in this direction.

The rebuttal of Clinton's Foreign policy credentials, BTW, comes from Greg Craig, a long time friend and legal aid of the Clintons. It's clear, fact-based, and to the point - check it out yourself: http://thepage.time.com/obama-foreign-policy-memo/

It's also amazing she's still peddling the discredited NAFTA comment, particular given that the Canadian retraction points to the *Clinton* campaign as the source of the comment, not Obama's.

As a two term Clinton voter, I'm finding I just can't trust anything that comes out of Hillary's mouth anymore.

Abraham Lincoln's cabinet was riddled with nasty behavior. One cabinet member would routinely leak any information that made Lincoln look bad. He presided over a war where American killed American for primarily partisan reasons. (Not to say that I disgreed with the North's involvement in the war....I'm just choking on the implication that Lincoln's days were full of light and happiness).

Washington certainly warned against this. It took about 5 minutes after he announced he was stepping down before the partisan attacks started.

Get used to it. Politics is nasty.

To Hill and Obama---this is about America and American people not gender nor races. If your campaign is not about America and its people and the economy then shut up and back off. The more you fight each other like little kids, the more republican will win. It sounds to me that you are fighting for your own sake not the sake of the people of the United States of America. Focus on how to find solutions to the crisis American people are facing and the war that kills more people of both sides than Sadam did. If you are about yourself then back offffffffffff! Your actions toward each other are no different from Bush and his administration and the central intelligence information that took the country to raged an unpopular war. There are many people like myself will vote but unless you two stop ragging war against each other.

It's not just the Obama campaign who is questioning Clinton's foreign policy experience. It's everyone who was actually involved in the events that Hillary takes credit for! So far she has Putin saying that "a head of state should at least have a brain", she has Lord Trimble who won the Nobel Peace Prize for his part in the Northern Ireland peace process call her "silly", you have the absurd assertion by the Clintons' that the Bosnia trip was too dangerousfor the president to go on--so let's take our young teenaged daughter! You have the fact that the borders to Macedonia were opened to Kosovian refugees the day BEFORE Clinton got there. If this were any other candidate but Hillary Clinton, she would have been forced out of the race by now by the party elders.

If both of their attacks are accurate, then neither of them should be even running for the seat. Both of them would say anything to win and that's very sad. Both will flip-flop on issues and forgetting that what they had said initially would be remembered once they try to go the opposite way. I'm definitely voting Republican.

It's obvious Hillary Clinton doesn't give a damn about the Democratic Party. It's all about Hillary. Bow down before Queen Hillary. She will prove even more incompetent than George Bush II.

It's 3:00 a.m. in the White House.

Hillary Clinton has stepped over the line of too many lies and deceptions by claiming credit for peace in Northern Ireland. It is an insult to Ian Paisley, Gerry Adams, Tony Blair, George Mitchell, and the thousands that have died. So this is my response to to her experience..

The upstairs phone rings. The President Hillary answers.

Hello....No, Bill is not here....

No, I don't know where he is.

Who is this?....

No, I will not tell him Muffy called.

OH, I'M FOR O AH BAMA, WITH A VOTE FOR HIM YOU SEE
AND I'LL GO TO ALABAMA IF SUZANNA GOES WITH ME.
(finish it)

SIGH BIG BIG SIGH....Clintons are doing and saying anything to get to the Whitehouse. Every citizen in every country with a TV or computer since the 90's didn't expect anything else, so why should the American people? Are you soooo blind!! THE most corrupt couple in American history!! Why on Gods green earth do you keep electing them? What has Clinton, as senator, done FOR New York? With ALL that experience she keeps talking about, must have been something HUGE. Her senate record must be something astounding. Why don't you look it up?What a joke. The US will be the soap opera the rest of the world tunes into if the Clintons get back the Whitehouse. The world will watch, sigh, shake it's head and wonder why they didn't learn the first time around

Why such negative statement from Clinton.Is too bad i will no longer vote for her she utter much nagative statements.With this kind of statement i think she is not qualified to be in white house.Look at how Oboma followed her and monitor all her words and use it against her infact Oboma is more expirenced than Clintons.

She keep on messing around uttering words that when you look at it you find out thatit cant unified our country.so bad of her.

Obama's camp consistently distorts the facts and the truth, while at the same time crying foul when called on it, and then responding with even more prevarication. It's not only unconscionable, but it's pretty sad he feels he has nothing more to offer than to try to tear down Hillary's past successes. Then again, his own supporters cannot name one if his accomplishments in the Senate, so it's not surprising his campaign has a hard time too. And as for his claim he's "not Washington DC establishment", how can you be a US Senator and not be the establishment? C'mon people, wale up and smell your country dieing here.
Where are Obama's factual rebuttals and demonstrable evidence re: NAFTAgate, REZKOgate, and Samantha Power-gate (lies about Iraq withdrawals and calling Clinton names in public like a child)?

The attacks thrown around at the times of George Washington and/or Abraham Lincoln were much worse.

I donÕt mind good attacks. When a candidate states something it should be challenged.

I however, deplore attacks that are distortions of record or simple made up.

For example:
Attacks of speech plagiarism
Accusing candidates of using ÒKarl RoveÓ tactics.
Attacking someone for voting absent in their state senate
There are many moreÉ.

These types of attacks reflect simple mind. A mind that should not be in charge of anything.

I'm sick of this debate. the Clinton campaign should be ashamed. A woman of her talents should use them productively rather running the same old campaign we've come to loathe.

I liked the Clinton's in the 90s... and would truly love to see a woman president, but after witnessing what they'll say or do to win the nomination, I would never want that woman anywhere near the red phone... which doesn't exist by the way! How disingenuous. What this campaign has shown me is that the end does NOT justify the means! NAFTA was an abomination for the workers of this country and the farmers of Mexico. And it was Clinton that reversed the Steagall-Glass Act that had protected the little guy from the banking industry since 1933. Now look at the mess this sub-prime lending debacle has created thanks to the lifting of that one little act in 1999. Bill & Hillary have both been in politics way too long and need a long vacation!
So, after being introduced to the intelligent unflappable Barack Obama this year and seeing the kind of campaign he has run and the values that he stands for, I don't think there's any question... he IS the one we need to represent us as president of the United States of America! He inspires me to want to be a better person, a better citizen. One that will pull together with everyone to tackle our problems. He has given me hope that there is someone who CAN stand up to the greed and corruption of corporations, who WILL deliver our government back to the people.

So, if Hillary somehow manages to lie and deceive her way into the nomination, I will vote for Ralph Nadar... He at least is an honorable person who has fought a long time for the common man.

McCain was an honorable man but has thrown his principles away to garner support from the Bush republicans. He's gone over to the dark side.

the woman who did not have an inkling about what was happening to her spouse' habits like- dipping cigars in fannies and lighting the other end and smoking the smear-end, is claiming to be all ready at 3 am to take a call on important decisions. I seriously doubt if anyone in his right senses would keep ker informed about anything before presenting it as a fait-accompli.

What is being found in this election is not that it is the economy stupid, or the candidates, stupid, but the hidden players stupid that may be presumed to drive the campaign.

One and the same?

Will we wake up and see that the butler did it?