Hillary is Bush Lite. Go Obama!

Silly rabit, the politics of hope disapeared when Hillary started calling names. I love the fact that he is telling the truth. Is Hill the only one that can say anything, the arrogance of her campaign and her supporters is amazing!

I agree, Kwame, she's floating around the country as if she were attending a coronation! This isn't a monarchy.

DaveM............I take your suggestion to mean if you are young there is no way possible to be a good president. I wonder if that sense of logic could be applied to the last two presidents. Obama is not demonstrating naivete by saying he would meet with leaders of countries we disagree with. He showed that he understands how smaller countries need to be engaged, the same way we engage larger countries. It seems to me we as american's need to stop thinking in elitist terms when we veiw the world. There is a definite need for the Western world to re-think engagement strategies when dealing with smaller countries. The first thing we need to do is strike the word third world from our vocabulary. Stop dealing with the so called exiled elite from those countries.Approach and deal with them based on their culture and not ours. Senator Obama's comment was an honest response to a good question. I am sure that he has a basic understanding of the ground work necessary to conduct diplomatic discussions between leaders. This is just a cheap shot at a good man.
Elitist need to grow up. Remember those we do not talk to and how they behave.

I actually agree with Obama's position. It is time to meet these leaders face to face so that a dialog can begin about moving passed what we disagree about and work to see what we do agree on.

Hillary Clinton is double-talking once again. Out of her own mouth came the words that she woulndn't meet for diplomatic reasons. She's couching her language just like her ole man Bill does. Enough of that dishonest and calculated rhetoric of the Clintons. Barack is the only candidate speaking honestly and correctly. Enough of this inexperienced nonsense: Barack has more experience as an elected official than Hillary, Edwards Guiliani, or Romney. Check your facts before declaring him inexperienced.

She won't win this one. Obama called her out for what she is. Time to pull back the curtain.

What's really pathetic about Obama's foolish remark promising to talk with all those enemy leaders is that he said it because ***the remark had tested will with a focus group***. Now, really, how much more pathetic can a candidate get than that? His campaign itself said they did this. They said this the day after he made the remark in the debate.

He'd do something so naive and foolish and destructive to the well-being of the nation as to just go and meet blindly with these enemy leaders because it tested well with a focus group???!!!

Please, somebody get a long hook and pull this pathetic, pandering clown off of the stage.

Jake, don't be so naive. I know change is tough but it is inevitable.The world is moving towards working globally and with diplomacy. No need to be bitter. Just relax and sip some 'Bush' lite while the rest of us work on fixing this mess that was created by the same 'old-way' of thinking that Sen. Clinton and the current administration demonstrate.

Jake, he said he is WILLING to meet with them-not that he would do it without proper presonditions. Did you watch the debate or just start defending Hillary blindly? It only hurts your argument when you don't know what was asked and what was answered. DOWN WITH BUSH LITE! GO OBAMA!

honestly, before she made that remark I was leaning towards Clinton. But when she spouted the same party line that has led us into this mess, I was like, NO WAY. Obama isn't naive, he is a diplomat.And that's what we need. Enough sabre rattling and selling wars door to door. Remember the old saying? keep your friends close, your enemies closer. Let's talk to our enemies.

I wonder if I am the only one not directly associated with a campaign to post a comment here?

Cat - I watched the debate and was disappointed Obama fired off an answer to please the crowd with out sufficent thought. The question was 'with out pre-condition'.

Obama didn't say 'willing', he said 'would'.

“I would, And the reason is this — that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them, which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration, is ridiculous.”

We no longer have the luxury of looking for or going with "the politics of hope", Hill. We've been bled dry in the last 6 years and set back on existing issues as well as several new ones by 20 years. Who ever takes over after Bush's term has got to hit the ground running with some decisively forward moving policies immediately.
The problem is, any candidate from either of the two parties that comprise the uni-party probably won't be able to deliver.

There are people in the world that you cannot reason with. I hope our next president has the wisdom to tell the difference. Obama has proved he does not and I am not even an Hillary fan.

if anyone is a lite weight it is obama ~ she said naive ~ he is naive ~ he started with the name calling ~ and he will do more ~ mr goody two faced shoes ~ how's that for a sound byte

And the news media just loves the fact that most people put more value in following the name calling than they do the real issues. Because the issues would be a far harder and less $ensational thing to cover.

name calling or ad hominem is a clear indication of character and character is an indication of ability especially when faced with really serious problems ~ which is what is happening and it could get worse ~ obama doe not have a clue ~ he is just a 'rock star' at this point ~ he might ripen he might not ~ but the presidency isn't a finishing school ~ it is not day care for rookies

On this Obama is right on. Hillary is status quo in a time when we need change!

Hillary seems to me to be a viable candidate, HOWEVER I tend to agree with Obama as far as meeting with leaders face to face. Cut all the high & mighty formalities and MEET with these leaders. cut to the chase and STOP waisting time, Money, and LIVES!

The problem with choosing our next leader (IMHO) is not who the "face" or "mask" or perhaps I should say "puppet" is, but we should research who or what the "machinery" or "puppet-master" behind the front really is. In this situation, I would submit to you, gentle readers, "Follow The Money!" (not very original, but yet seemingly appropriate!).

Imagine that you are betting on a two-horse race, and you aren't concerned with winning money, but on "bragging-rights" as to being able to choose winning horses instead. Therefore if you bet on both horses, you are assured of bragging-rights.

If the same puppet-masters that have helped elect the past administration(s) are now supporting certain candidates, and you vote for those, please do not be surprised if you get more of the same, whether "lite" or not, or perhaps you might prefer the term "W-in-a-dress".

What I think we need is alternative candidates, how their campaigns will be funded, I honestly cannot answer. To level the field, however, some form of effective campaign reform must occur, although I do not foresee such character or sense of fair play occuring during my lifetime.

I would be the first to suggest Colin Powell, or Ron Paul as a way out of this morass that we are in.

"Don't re-elect anybody!"

Hillary what a joke!! Experience? Yeah, Who wants that kind of same old "EXPERIENCE" of never getting anything done in Washington with the partisan bickering, croynism,nepotism and back room politics. Experience yeah that's just what this country needs! More of the same.

In reading through this it amazes me that there is no mention of amongst all this of the candidate who not only has the experience, (Congressman, UN Ambassador, Dept. of Energy Sec.,successful businessman, & Governor) and a history of success in meeting with precisely the types foreign leaders this question revolves around. I know the mainstream media and back room pols would like to dismiss him because he is Hispanic and those types are not yet ready to embrace the real direction the country is headed towards. The real deal is: BILL RICHARDSON. Help this man get elected, and help the country.

I'm of the opinion that anyone that needs to resort to petty name calling is insecure about their own arguement. I believe a changing of the old guard is needed, but knee-jerk reaction to the extreme opposite is not always the answer. I think Obama needs to stick to the issues and not get so sucked up into the petty stuff. Their will be plenty of time for that in the next phase of the race...

I agree concernedAmerican, Colin Powell has proven himself to be a great man.

StephenO:

I submit to you that Colin Powell, although not a Hispanic, has adequate experience to perform admirably well if his hands were not to be tied as in the past.

Could not a grass-roots level of nomination be instituted as to your candidate and mine and also others, independent of PAC money?

Obviously, you and I are participants of the internet, with political leanings, and I believe that you want the best for our country as I do, also.

Neither Bill or Colin are of my ethnicity, nor do I care about such trivial facts when our great nation is under attack "from within".

No offense intended to anybody, just speaking my mind.

"I want my America back!"

concernedamerican: FYI: Obama has asked Colin Powell to advise him on foreign policy-and Colin accepted. I have no doubt Obama has the wisdom to surround himself with the best and brightest in the country as his advisors when he is president.

well people voted for bush ~ not me ~ so maybe the problem is not the candidates but the voters ~ someone asked if he were the only one here not associated with a campaign ~ i am a musician ~ i am voting for hillary ~ she can and will win ~ anyone strong enough to take so much hate and abuse and not crumble has intrinsic worth in my opinion

Bottom line: People do not vote for FLIP FLOPPING WAFFLERS like Kerry, and Hillary Clinton is a Flip Flopping Waffler. She tries to out-think the Opposition which is not her strong point. She will lose, but that does not mean that Obama will win. He must continue to stand firm on his principles no matter who tries to fault him for lack of experience. If I'm going to go down, I'm going down fighting for what I truly believe in, because that is what people will remember.

brightquiet, I want to know why Hillary refuses to be held accountable for her vote to go to Iraq. I'm not a campaign worker, I'm a librarian, and my two sentators in Minnesota at the time, Mark Dayton and Paul Wellstone, had the wisdom and courage to vote against the authorization. Wellstone would be the front-runner today were he not killed with his wife and daughter in a plane crash days before his 2002 election. He, unlike Hillary showed his wisdom and courage by voting no. I just want to know why, if she wants to be presidential nominee for DEMS, she needs to admit she made a mistake in the vote for the war? Doesn't want to admit she made a bad judgement call? Or does she believe she made the right call in sending our troops into Iraq?

Cat:

I honestly did not know that. Thanks for the info. That would be a major "coup-de-grace" against the competition, in my opinion. Who does Hillary say is going to advise her? She will certainly need some. I hope that it is not A.E.I or Brookings or AIPAC or other traitors of that ilk.

As the younger generation sometimes says, "Doooooo".

This should be trumpeted about more than it has been, since this is the first that I hear of it. I recall all the talk concerning the defraying of Bush's(43) inexperience with the bringing in of Cheney and "all of his experience" as his running partner. That worked well back then it would seem. Now, I wish that he had been less "experienced".

I will pay more attention to Obama in the future, I can assure you!

Although I cannot speak for the man, I feel that we would not be in the morass that we are in if Colin's advice/intent as Secretary of State would have not been dismissed by those that found it inconvenient.

"I still want my America back!"

If Obama is too inexperienced, tell me how Bush qualified - Texas Ranger President, Clinton qualified - AG of a Southern State, Reagan qualified - Govoner of a Western State, Kennedy qualified - newer Senator of a New England state. The only qualifications that I see Hillary has is that she was in the white house doing something, but we do not know what. For sure, Monica was doing, pardon the usage, all the heavy lifting.

Looking at the bright side: who can do a worst job than Bush? Hillary is the wrong being spiteful toward ditto heads. Democrats should show they are better than that. The entertainment factor favors Obama. He is a good talker. Politics shows us talk is cheap. Who can do the least amount of damage?

Gizmo:

Hillary's qualifications are that she will obey the will of AIPAC, the present, and I do unfortunately suspect, future puppet-master.

"Can I have my America back now. please?"

Ok Obama! Unfortunately, Obama may have the dazzle, but not the OAK required for the "Tit for Tat/Piddle-Paddle required for all the lies of Asia put together. Is not our nation tired of the DAZZLE?

concernedamerican-Colin revealed early June in a Meet the Press interview that he had been meeting with Obama because Obama had solicited his advice on foreign policy. It ran in the other news for about a day. Colin has not officially joined the campaign and said did not want an elected office, but would not rule out service. Obama's supporters have started a small movement to draft Colin into the campaign. We'll see what happens-Colin has served republicans in the past.

America cannot afford to elect an inexperience candidat to become the next President of the United State of America. For the new President will have a lot of cleaning up to do. I believe Senator Hillary Clinton is to most qualified among the candidates.
We need to Reclaim back America. God Bless America!!!

Cat:

Do not let that bother you, I believe that Colin would assist either side, (Dem/Rep) whichever he believed had the moral high-ground, and sincerely cared about America. The fact that he is "collaborating" with a DEM proves that,after having served for a REP, and also a DEM, if I remember correctly. (In my opinion only, I, unfortunately do not know him on a personal basis, but he is welcome at my place for barbeque and beers.) Obama must be doing something right is what I take away from this. Why can't there be more people such as this, who care less about party-affiliation and re-election/agrandizement than the welfare of America? Do they all take an oath and immediately (through their actions) renounce it? Good to communicate with you. Have to go for tonight.

"I might just take my America back, regardless of you!"

Barack Obama is a strong leader and is exactly what our country needs in a President. I have read both of his books and have heard him speak at least 5 times and listen to the speeches Ive missed online. He truely cares about everyone and has the inteligence and the leadership abilities to lead our country where it needs to go. He understands that 10% of the people own 90% of the money and he will do everything he can to help make this country a better place for all of us. He has the ability to bring people together for the good of the people. He wont give in unless he truely believes it is the right decision for all of us. Listen to his speeches. Go to a rally. Get to know him. I guarantee you , you wont be sorry. He has so much to offer our country and the world. He is a genuine good person. This country cannot afford to let him go. Experience is great, but it also takes brains, common sense , and great leadership abilities. Please get to know Barrack Obama. He is truely one of a kind.
Kay

I wouldn't vote for either one of them if they ran for city dogcatcher.

ok, its time to get real here.

I'm happy everyone is 'ohh obama is so right we need to talk to these nations!'

Hillary has said in her answer that she will engage in intensive diplomancy with these nations and have many lower-level meetings to 'test the waters'.

Everyone here that took the side of Obama is victim of Obama's spin.

Obama's committed and is willing to meet with the worst dictators in the world, within the first year with NO PRECONDITIONS!

DID ANYONE ELSE HEAR THIS?!

NO president would never and never will meet with those dictators in that type of situation! THEY WONT!
.... unless the president is someone like Barack Obama, who is inexperienced and doesnt understand the correct ways to conduct foreign policy.

Hillary CLinton will conduct SMART diplomancy. Diplomancy that WONT undermine the power of our president!

Guys/Gals,

You just cannot meet with another President WITHOUT any PREDONDITIONS. Because you simply don't know what they want, promising a meeting at this highlevel without knowing what they want is naive, if not stupid. Talk is important, but meeting between Presidents is not something you should be taken lightly. There are a lots of ground work need to be done before you can really meet at this level, without those, you just waste the time without accomplish anything. Worse, the other side might use this meeting as their own political advantage, which may not be something you want.

What Hillary said is correct, and she certainly is not Bush lite, Bush simply ignore those nations and try to overthrow them.

Kid Charlemagne suggested that Obama is "just a 'rock star' at this point...but the presidency isn't a finishing school...it is not day care for rookies."
Well, considering we elected an actor as president and will have suffered through 8 years under the current "president" who can barely put a coherent sentence together and doesn't know our Constitution from a roll of toilet paper, I would beg to differ. Why do you think the USAmerican standards for "experience" are out of the reach of anyone running for presidency now?

And to everyone jumping on the ignorant bandwagon of "Oh! What horrible dictators are in these other countries, because Bush and Clinton and Pat Robertson say they are!" ????? Pray tell, what do such drone-types believe makes Chavez a treacherous dictator? Because he was overwhelmingly elected president of Venezuela, or because he criticizes the corporate interests of a country (ours) that plot the overthrow of other nations and leaders for their own profit??? I would wager that no one on this board who referred to Chavez - or even Fidel Castro - as "treacherous dictators" knows much if any history of the countries or leadership of which they speak so crudely.

Hillary backs corporate interest. Most of these candidates from the twin parties do (Republicans and Democrats).

But yes, occasionally you get an independent thinker who remains truthful throughout - someone who PROVES what they are made of by their voting and speaking. And Paul Wellstone was one of those rare gems. But now it can only be DENNIS KUCINICH. I was a firm believer in staying away from both of the major parties because of their constant betrayals of the truth and knowing now that they both led us into a bloody illegal war based on lies and deception. But not Kucinich. From day one, he has voted AGAINST the war with Iraq. He voted AGAINST funding the war with Iraq. He voted AGAINST the USAPatriot Act (why? Because he actually READ it before voting!!!), and he can actually state his case without an army of speech writers and handlers. It's a lot easier to do that when you aren't trying to cover up a trail of lies.

That's why Clinton and Edwards are afraid of debating him. Because he points out their complicit participation in this illegal war that is bankrupting our morals, or safety and standing in the world, and our children's futures.

You can actually HEAR him on YouTube. Do a search and you will find a diamond in the rough just like I have. Amazingly refreshing to hear a sane and educated AND EXPERIENCED voice during this campaign. No the Democratic National Committee probably doesn't want to support him, but that's because they were primarily behind supporting this war, too. Everyone wants to cover their own stench. But Congressman Dennis Kucinich doesn't have to cover anything. He's funny. He's smart. He's honest, and he doesn't let anyone get away with anything!

Obama is right. Whave been "not talking" with Cuba for decades and that has not gotten us anywhere. We actively negotiated with the Soviets and Chinese when they were our enemies and that turned out to be effective. Hillary is wrong.

As an African,I personally feel that Barack Obama has been out of line.Hillary began with her respectable campaign but Obama began the bad talking and continued even up until the debate.Hillary isn't bad talking Obama but clearly stating facts.Hillary is evidently the most qualified and intelligent presidential candidate.Obama is hypocritical in his answers like almost every weaker or below standards candidate running for public office.He says whatever the people want to hear.Hillary wants to be accountable by her statements.Obama is purely taking advantage of Hillary's popularity, intelligence and maturity.However Hillary has decided to stop being a prude.Barrack needs to hear the truth for a change and who else to tell it but Hillary Clinton.I'm not a Hillary or Obama fan even though I'm black.However I make My deductions from available premises Hill and Obama left over the years.I wish Hillary were My president for objective reasons.She is smart,bold and experienced.Simply put.You Americans should be proud of your assets.It's better to work with a record you can identify with (Hillary's)than a seemingly wonderful invention you've never tested(Obama).The decision is yours to make.

Obama represents an opinionless individual(I dare to call him one as there's nothing individual about him).He banks on any favourable statement Hillary makes.He tries to criticize her policies by making them seem obsolette.Why can't he device a campaign strategy that doesn't boder on criticizing Hillary.He likes to draw attention to Hillary's madate and goals for America.He might as well focus on his.He's never slow to point out her stance on the Iraq war(which she voted for and takes responsibility for.She regrets this and her vote was given under Bush's lies and deceit but Obama never adds the end) or remind Americans She's Bill Clinton's wife.However Hillary is running for Public office on her own merits.She is evidently well vast,well connected,experienced and educated.And as for some Americans claiming experience isn't vital,you must be in denial because the most experienced people are those companies prefer to employ as you're a better bet.George Bush wasn't experienced to be the president based on his records and Americans voted him president.I hope you apply reason and Logic before casting your votes for Obama.And the present American predicaments goes to prove this.Hillary and Bill Clinton left a clean record for America(despite Lewinsky's challenges.That goes to show the fortitude and wisdom of Hillary to serve her nation) and the world was in love with America until George Bush came into Power.So My friends in America,you need a well experienced President not just for your advantage but the worlds.Hillary was intelligent enough to say she wouldn't meet with leaders of Iran,Venezuela and other tyrannical leaders who aren't only enemies of Americans but the world's. She would delegate strong diplomats for this atleast in the first year until conditions are met.You can't expect because She's a woman and American's president to jump in to a propagandist strategy by those tyrant leaders just to please Americans.She has to protect the American presidency and a good number of world leaders who depend on the wisdom and supremacy of America to protect her interests.I am from one of those nations in Africa who needs a good government in America to protect our interest.It's Hillary who can do the job as she's done it in the past with her husband Bill.Have a rethink before you post remarks.

I watched Hardball on MSNBC yesterday. It doesn't matter how Hillary wants to deny her association with Bush/Cheney policy;their camp is coming to her defense. It was none other than Stephen Hayes who is Dick Cheney's biographer who strongly defended Hillary and criticized Senator Obama on the issue of talking to our adversaries. Senator Obama should wear this as a badge of honor. This also demonstrates that it is not a stretch to say HILLARY IS BUSH-LITE.
Oh, how about a BUSH/CHENEY/LIEBERMAN democrat. Please Mr Lieberman step up to the stage, Hillary is waiting for your support (Don't you think)?

Nwokoye,
Your piece is the the most naieve analysis of the past Clinton presidency, Hillary's vote on the war and her current campaign. Wake up buddy!

Crybaby Obama needs to stop playing the name calling game and focus on the issues...he definitly is NOT Presidential material.

I think it great that Obama is speaking his mind... I don’t want politicians that "play nice" I want politicians who tell me the truth, how they really feel, and what they are really going to do if they get elected, and let the chips fall where they may… and Billary isn’t doing any of this, and she needs to be called on it…. She sure doesn’t sound presidential by saying “this is silly”, she like sound like a teenager, calling names, instead of giving a substance response to a valid criticism from an opponent…….

The USA needs an experienced and knowledgeable President. She will have a lot of repair work to do. I believe Senator Hillary Clinton is the most qualified of all the candidates to lead the USA in the right direction. She is the right person for the job. I would like to see the other Democrat candidates unite behind her candidacy.

Carol - Clarkston, GA

If Hillary Clinton is voted into office, there will be further proof that the American people do not know how to hold their politicians accountable for what they actually DO (and do not do). Anyone can talk a good talk every four years - especially with high-paid speech writers and underhanded sound bites. But ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN ANY WORDS. Do we all have collective brain damage? It doesn't matter whether Hillary is a man or a woman, SHE VOTED FOR THIS WAR!!!!!! Enough said for me for this lifetime.

I do believe most of the H. Clinton support here is from her paid campaign workers. The last thing this country needs is to revisit the polarizing political paralysis that ruled the later days of the Clinton experience. Her negatives are so high I do not see how the party hacks think there is any point to her candidacy.
But if the DEMS are looking for another excuse to get another REP elected - then she is the perfect for the job. This is the truth.

This sealed the deal for me, I'm voting for Obama, his willingness to meet with those leaders shows true initiative and leadership.

After the Bill and Hillary power machine obliterates the youthful earnest ladd, he'll gladly accept the consolation prize, the "first runner up" in the beauty pagent position, I'm talking about the vice presidency. He's only 45 and 8 years later he would still be a youthful presidential canidate, and have real experience to talk about, he may even have done something.

To this story, I would say this has shown to be one helish dialogue as to how one should act in accordance with Presidency and meeting with those who we seem not to want to accept...Whether Senator Clinton refrains to meet until other things are met, and whether Obama believes we should has not been a question to decide either or...I do not even see debating on this eloection because our country is in turmoil and its not getting anywhere with the Generals trying to decide what the best step is to take for our men over seeas...why even have an election debate...I am more concerned as to when our men are going to get the "go" to come home from hell! What is all this ABC! Why are we so busy on suppose this or that...why si it this Congressional body and all the high ranking officials can't come together to form the United Nations home front for our men here and in Canada who are spending their lives on some dirty ground overthere that has no taste of home or will ever become home...why are we playing russian roulette! Apachecheynne

May i add another comment: I believe Hillary Clinton and Obma would both be good condidates o the same ticket because both have families, both want for the people and both bring insight...why settle for a fraction of either or...Lets take it to the forefront and give them both a piece of this national concern..reason being The Clinton administration brought forth a hope for the people with a few curve balls, and now they have gained renewal as one, secondly Obama is of diverse qualifications and can bring to the table a new fresh approach that can quickly put the Republican Government of the Old Tyranny to the back door! Apachecheynne

Hillary's funny. The majority of members at a Political forum I belong to have been calling her a Bush/Cheney in a dress for years. ( Giuliani qualifies for that literally as well) Giuliani is more like Cheney on Steroids in a dress.

Hillary doesn't want out of the war. She's been voting for it and to keep it going all along and even gets excited during talks of nuking Iran. Who does she think she is kidding.

Obama is a special interests puppet and is a member of the CFR. Don't be fooled by him either. Those two, Rudy and Mitt, will all become BushCheney II if elected. All 4 have the Royal Monarch mentality.

I get a very nervous feeling in the pit of my stomach when I think of Barack Obama being elected President.

I am a Democrat who is still evaluating all of our candidates and trying to give all of them a fair chance to convince me; but every time I hear Obama speak, or watch him in the debates, I say "President Barack Obama" to myself ... and it just doesn't feel right.

He comes across as unready for this every important job.

You Americans, dont love to stomach truth and reality.What have you gained so far by putting obsolete preconditions before meeting dictators? At the end you always humuliate yourselves.You refused t talk to Iran until they stop their nuclear enrichments plans, have they? Why then the last talks in Iran? Did Reagan talk to communist devil or not? do u enjoy the fruits of that diplomacy or u enjoy the bush-tough -talk humuliations?

Go on and elect Hilary and u will be back to square one. I followed your debate and can honestly say Hilary craftily wanted to play the experience card but it backfired this time around.she shot herself in the leg badly.lest u forget she had critized bush intransigent diplomacy but unfornately flip flopped with while trying to play the experience card.

well u americans go bluder again. hope u love whats happening in iraq. cheers

Im neither an Obama fan nor a clinton fan but reality proves obama right.clinton herself knows that. the best candidate on the stage is Denis K. what obama said is the true. u cannot be calling for a dog while holding a stick. thats not diplomacy. thats what bush has done all these while. it has failed. reagan and r.kennedy knew the secret and it worked miracles. had reagan not engaged communist russai who knows what would have become of the cold war? the funniest thing about this is that clinton really has flip flopped. she crititized bush heavily on this before but now she is trying to run for primary and general elections at the same time therefore trying to appeal to the right.obama has been consistent.

americans, im afraid you're gonna be double fooled.wait and see!