Fight! Fight! Fight!

The current Government is Socialist, do they live by the same laws as the citizens? Cheney thinks he has his own branch of government. Tyrany just around the corner.

Lets see so Reagan before he was President had all this power!! since the shah was overthrown in Carter's weak presidency.

The group that took our hostages purposely waited for Reagan, oh boy. Funny thing

Where was this proven?? In Lib LALA world?

here's Reagan actually confessing that he'd lied about the affair originally, after the Republican-led Tower report concluded the scandal had actually happened, march 4, 1987..

"Let's start with the part that is the most controversial. A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not As the Tower board reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages. This runs counter to my own beliefs, to administration policy, and to the original strategy we had in mind. There are reasons why it happened, but no excuses. It was a mistake."

No Spock,

The CIA put the terrorists in control by foolishly ousting Mohammed Mossadegh and replacing him with the shah. The Iranians never forgave us for that, leading to the shah's overthrow. It's been proven, legally, by republican-run courts, no less, that Reagan's folk made a deal with the Iranians to keep the hostages just long enough for him to win the election by making carter look weak. Those guns the Iranian guards are sending over to the militiamen shooting our troops were bought and paid for by Reagan.
Or were you doing a tour on the Enterprise during the entire Iran-Contra affair?

Elmagico - Oh being nice like Carter, I guess he was nice to the enemies of this country, definitely not the American people. Since Carter was the one who put the Islamic terrorist in charge in Iran.

Reagan won the Cold ward , gave us a flourishing economy.

Get off the kool-aid

It's amazing how everyone comes to the table on this without any real grasp of reality. Everyone just comes out swinging for their side of things before thinking.
Here's what's really going on.
There was nothing wrong with Obama's answer. Hillary heard it, and decided that she could show herself to be experienced by adding some nuance. Obama never said he'd go running to people's doorstep the first day he was in office. But her answer was an attempt to spin it that way.
It's no more of a spin job than any other politician out there is doing to win this election, either.
Rudy's doing it to his competitors, Mitt's doing, McCain's doing it, Edwards is doing it...eventually, Clinton and Obama are going to do it as we get close to election day.
Carter tried being nice in 80, and found himself up against an opponent willing to let our citizens languish in terror at the hands of islamic fundamentalist terrorists just to ensure he'd win an election.
We don't vote for people who are nice. That's how we got Bush.
And as for the vitriolic, frothy-mouthed sputterings of people screaming "socialist" you do more damage to the conservative cause than any so-called liberal ever could. The entire rest of planet earth considers the Republicans far right and the Democrats a centrist party. We don't have a leftist party in the US. Our democrats are even considered right-wingers in many of other first-world countries. Comparing them with socialists and marxists is laughable, pathetic, slanderous and gut-wrenchingly naive all at the same time.

Sean O'Brien - All the Dems/lib/progressives (whatever the Marxists call them selves today) are changing their tunes so much because they all lie, do you think they would win elections if they told the truth of what they really want?

But is this stretch of lies, Obama proved his naiveness, see Chavez has used Carter as Propaganda, Syria has used Pelosi as propaganda and so forth.

murl41 - OK first we are talking about talking with the enemy, Chamberlain went and talked to Hitler, the rest is evelvent. But so because Germany lost the first World War and had to repay, that gives them an excuse to kill millions? Naiveness I guess runs in Marxists.

murl41 - on your other comment,
1 - Iran and us have been enemies ever since Carter decided to appease them.
2 - Where do you get 500000 (this number is inflated by 10), but anyhow does that the Iraq's are fighting for their freedom.
3 - They built the nuclear bomb from Clintons talking and giving them nuclear powerplants, they are now offering to shutdown them because of the way Bush is working with them. So you actually prove my point, not talking to them works. Look at Libya, even though the libs here are going to ruin the peace with Libya because the Libs are fighting talking to them even now after they gave up their weapons, because the libs want money (yes I know, it was an unfortunate and sad loss)

The funny part here is I never thought I would be defending Clinton.

Clinton had the better answer to that one question, but she's overplaying her hand and reinforcing the negative perceptions many have of her... like she did with that DoD letter thing.

I find it just a little ironic that Hillary can use terms like "irresponsible" and "naive" to describe Obama because he offered to meet with hostile foreign leaders. She suggested that this might allow the meeting to be used as a propaganda tool. In essence, she thought that Obama would be aiding enemy propaganda. How is this different from her dispute with the Pentagon only days before? At least the Pentagon did not call her "irresponsible" and "naive". Something stinks here. Is this a contest to see who can produce the best verbal lashing?

Clinton said she voted for the Iraqi War because "I trusted the President". How did Obama have the foresight to know the war would be a disaster??

Clinton voted for the war because she was naive.

You know, I was watching the "opinion graph" version of the debate and Obama's answer scored in the 80s while Clinton's answer scored below 60. So the audience didn't like her answer.

Part of the reason is that it wasn't about "at what level" one negotiates talks, but visionary leadership that delivers unexpected results. The question was if you would promote the status quo realist approach, or be a visionary. Obama said, yes, being a visionary can deliver unexpected results, I'll try. Clinton responded with some bureaucratic realist trash.

Her answer was terrible, and she's trying to spin out of it. Except she's flatly contradicting herself. Anyone who thinks Hillary got the better of this thinks Mitt Romney didn't get beheaded by Obama over that sex-ed flare-up, thinks John McCain still has a shot at it, and also thinks the Earth is flat.

Chamberlin met with Hitler yes. If you choose to quote history you must demonstrate you have a perspective on what lead to WW11. Because of WW1 the westen world held Gemany responsible for the monetary cost of that war and insisted they repay it. Germany attempted to repay it and were unable. This condition was worsen by the great depresion. As aresult Hilter arian race supremancy message connected with the population and the result was WW11. There were lesson learned. 1.To talk to someone does not imply apeasement. Chamberlain was wrong man to deliver the message 2. When a war is ended help your adversary rebuild and enable them to rejoin the union. Had we did #2 after ww1 i DOUBT IF WE WOULD HAVE GONE TO WAR.

It was naive of Obama to commit himself to high level talks with those who would only use them as a public relations tool. Did he not study history and the effect of the Vienna summit between Kruschev and Kennedy and the disasterous consequences of that meeting.

Obama tried to look like a leader and talked in a more forceful tone, but there was little substance. Biden is a loose cannon (the gun question), Gravel is a waste of time. Richardson shot himself in the foot on universal health care for illegal aliens.

Despite her negatives, Hilary will be the nominee and be considered the lesser of two evils in a "throw the bums out" 2008 election.

I personally enjoyed the freshness that Obama is bringing, sure he'll talk to these leaders, why not? It was an ideal answer at the highest level...that is EXACTLY what a leader does, set high level goals and milestones... it also showed international and cultural sophistication....

On the other hand Clinton's answer only showed that she knows about the low level bureacracy that she participates in....her answer has probably already offended these countries from ever wanting to meet with her if she becomes president....

Liberalisnotadirtyword - Conservatives have closed minds? If so why do we clean house and Libs support their candidates even if they are criminals?

And yes it is a dirty word!

And it is the Libs that preach Socialism, look up Marxism and then compare it to waht they say, different wording they may use but same meaning - Universal = Socialized, Tax the Rich (anyone making over 1 dollar a year) give to goverment.

I give them credit that in the same sentence they can attack FEMA and the VA which is socialized medicine and then say the goverment does thing better.

So who is blind??

Hillary could get the nomination, but she can not win the election. It doesn't really matter at this point if she is right or wrong. I like her, but she needs to back off. We need a democrat in the White House next round and Obama has the best chance of winning. This country is not ready for a female president.

Oh PLEAZZE, You people for HIllary make out again to be the mis-guilded and mis-informed as always. HILLARY is part of the WARBURGS who intern is part of the FEDERAL RESERVE (BANK) SYSTEM that has dominated our country since it's creation before 1913. THEY AREN'T part of anything but money hungery domminering SELF IMPOSED Capitalist!( And I am being nice there )I laugh at you fools thinking that this PERSON is anything different than a WOMAN that will say anything do anything to continue the MYTH, and NEW WORLD ORDER! Remember SHE VOTED for this Occupation of IRAQ and you all fell for it! Hook line and STINKER! SHE WAS A REPUBICON, NOW SHES TRYING to be Ms. Betty CROCKER? WITH a UZI? I inquired to her speech she gave at the NAACP and was told by her own people she was never there. That she was on the senate floor July 12th. Funny thing is SHE was there. As reported in the Detroit Freee Press and and other media our there BESIDES CNN. I for one do not abide to LIERS and harrassment from any of her people. ESPECIALLY in my own home state of NEW HAMPSHIRE! When I am like others trying to find out the TRUTH we get more of a smoke screen. Rasism and SEXISM is alive and well and LIVING in HILLARY! ps. ya'll have a nice day.

Time will tell...

Naive? Please. A willingness to talk is not anything but that. It's not an offer to immediately and unquestioningly give Syria, North Korea or whoever whatever they want. Hillary and co. is just looking to score a cheap political point, which is isn't surprising.

But she can't have it both ways. She can't have it both ways -- criticize Bush one night for not talking and Obama another for being willing to talk. That's sheer hypocrisy. Again, not surprising coming from her.

Obama shows leadership, and more wisdom in his fewer years than I fear a cynical Hillary will ever gain in her lifetime.

And frankly, after 20 years of Bush / Clinton rule, I'm not too inclined to sign on for another 8. Time for some new blood. Let the Bush and Clinton teams spare the country from their ugly brand of politics for a while.

Nothing quite as amusing as conservatives beating up on Democrats, misinterpreting everything and labeling them as socialists. As an independent and objective observer of politics, Republicans are, in general, arrogant and close minded. But I digress...

How is it "naive" to say you would be WILLING to meet with leaders of countries that oppose the US and democracy as an ideal. Obama simply stated he would be willing to meet with and open dialogue with these leaders. And, by the way, Clinton II did not say she wouldn't meet them, she said she wouldn't promise to.

I don't necessarily believe Obama is ready for the presidency, but I can assure you Hillary NEVER WILL BE. Don't you think 20 consecutive years of either a Bush or a Clinton in the White House is enough, people.