You must be referring to the speech Obama made in November 20 2006 in Chicago at the Chicago Council of Global Affairs. Right. The excerpt that you read from that speech where it reads "Such a reduced but active presence will also send a clear message to hostile countries like Iran and Syria that we intend to remain a key player in this region." also ends in with "It is simply not productive for us not to engage in discussions with Iran and Syria on an issue of such fundamental importance to all of us."

The other part of the excerpt where the Clinton memo mentions "Such a reduced but active presence will also send a clear message to hostile countries like Iran and Syria that we intend to remain a key player in this region." was referring to the subject on reducing forces while keeping political diplomacy in IRAQ NOT IRAN. Here is proof:"if there is substantial movement towards a political solution among Iraqi factions; if the Iraqi government showed a serious commitment to disbanding the militias; and if the Iraqi government asked us in a public and unambiguous way for such continued support.We would make clear in such a scenario that the United States would not be maintaining permanent military bases in Iraq, but would do what was necessary to help prevent a total collapse of the Iraqi state and further polarization of Iraqi society." Obama mentioned this just before he mentioned "Such a reduced force". Its easy to one part of his speech and misconstrue it on purpose because it was a very long speech. In conclusion, the Clinton memo states a false claim of Obama changing his mind when all one has to do is read his many speeches he has made public on his website.

Clinton is really reaching and is losing more credibility with this email. Perhaps trying to cover her own rear end for implicitly giving Bush the green light to attack Iran.

There is absolutely no inconsistency in these remarks by Senator Obama.

I find it rather arrogant for Clinton to boast of her position in the polls and then when asked about her front-runner status,to play it off by saying she is working hard like everybody else. This is the kind of thing that turns me off as an Independent voter. Clinton may need to be more concerned about the movie playing on Friday at Harvard University and again Saturday at 2 p.m. at Dartmouth College in Hanover, N.H. concerning her donor issues with Peter Paul. The lawyers in the movie says that the Clintons may have committed the biggest donor fraud ever.

Obama is looking more and more naive, or should a say, his stupidity is getting exposed and more obvious everyday. He's an embarrasment in the real sense of the word. He's only a legend in his own mind. Why doesn't he just quit the race because he doesn't stand a chance of winning anyway. I wouldn't want someone who lacks knowledge on foreign policy and diplomacy as my President. That would be a shame to the American people as well as the International community.

The point is neither can win a national election. You have to win the red states as GWB has unfortunitly has proven. Redneck states will not elect a woman or a black man, no matter how qualified. Sooo... democratic party, dreamer libs, delusional optimists, hear this: THEY ARE BOTH UNELECTABLE. Bottom line. To defeat the repubs and destroyers of great countries, we must choose a true leader who can win.........

To the ones calling Obama naive, you need to look at yourselves in the mirror,and it also wouldn't hurt to read the entire speech which was taken entirely out of context by the Clinton camp. A good try by Clinton, she may fool some, not bright enough to research before putting their fingers to the keyboard, but there are others who take the time to research before sticking their head in their posterior.

Skipped the vote? Come on Hillary, that is a pretty sleezy accusation since Harry Reid did a 180 on the voting schedule, saying that there would not be a vote on this for days, then calling for a quick vote on it the next morning when Barack was gone.

Did I mention that Reid's son is working on the Clinton campaign??

Hillary Clinton would get destroyed in the general election. Her negatives have been solid at 48% for months, and the GOP smear machine hasn't even gotten cranked up yet. Those negatives will jump up at least another 10-12 points then. Believe it or not, potential Hillary supporters, there is a point where your negatives become so high that you can't win. Your exuberance in trying to return us to the "good old Clinton days" is going to lead us into another general election ambush. The reality is that if Hillary weren't Bill Clinton's wife, she'd be a nobody.

The ONLY Democrat currently in office that I trust on Foreign Policy is Leiberman. Obama and Clinton are so beholding to foreigners it's not funny, it's pathetic. Clinton gets most of her money from the communist chinese, you think she would ever sign a bill against trade with China or human rights within China. Democrats just can't be trusted. Socialists like Kennedy Schumer Boxer Feingold, Harkin Obama Clinton, Leahy are ruining this great Country. If we had more DEMs like Leiberman and Zell Miller (former GA Senator) we'd be far better off. I feel sorry for you Clinton cronies. 4 years of Hillary would be like 4 years under Stalin.

dean o : Rebuttal to comments: Before making a statement like "being beholden to foreigners", or "gets most of her money from the communist chinese," why not try to go to fec.gov (federal election commission website),> where every donation made to a candidate is required to be posted by law, and try to gain a small bit of fact before posting such gibberish. It's people like you who engage their keyboard before their brain that makes me wish the electorate be required to pass an intelligence test before voting. I also find it abhorrent that the Clinton campaign people post only a portion of Mr. Obama's speech taking it entirely out of context making it appear detrimental. Unfortunately their attempt will fool some, but those of intelligence will take the time to go to barackobama.com before making comment and read the entire speech, and once done will find that Mr. Obama certainly hasn't changed his stance at all.

James:

In response to your first comment. Sen. Clinton has called for unconditional country-to-country negotiations with Iran and plans to use the sanctions as leverage to ensure constructive Iranian participation.

In response to your second comment: I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that Sen. Clinton wants troops in IRAN and is claiming that Sen. Obama agrees? She doesn't and isn't. The follwing is from her e.mail. The caps are mine.

That was Senator Obama in late 2006 making the case for why maintaining a military force in IRAQ is necessary to constrain Iran's ambitions.

NO Democrat I'm aware of wants to put troops in Iran.

B.Smith:

Sen. Obama could have voted: he simply chose to leave town to campaign instead. In the quote you linked to in support of your position, Sen. Reid himself indicates that he hoped the issues that were preventing a vote would be cleared up that night. In fact, they were: the vote was the next day. And if Sen. Reid was involved in some secret plan to exclude Sen. Obama, how foolish of him to make his statement before the entire Senate where all the Senators running for President could hear it and show up to vote. Except Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain.

B.Smith:

One the inconsistencies in Sen. Obama's position is that while he generally supports the sanctions that President Bush has imposed, he now claims that what he objected to in Kyl-Lieberman is not the terrorist designation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, but language in the amendment discussing forces in Iraq in terms of affecting Iran. The quote that Sen. Clinton highlights shows Sen. Obama discussing forces in Iraq in terms of affecting Iran.

The other inconsistency is that Sen. Obama was a co-sponsor of a bill in March with Senator Gordon H. Smith(R), calling for the Revolutionary Guard to be designated a "terrorist" organization.

At first, I really liked Obama and thought maybe he was the right person for the times now to run the country. But the longer the campaign goes, and the more he talks, I see he does not really know how to handle himself in certain situations. He tries to act more knowlegeable than I think he really is. That would be a dangerous thing for the U.S. right now. We need someone in the WH who is experienced enough in domestic and foreign affairs that can handle every situation in an intelligent, thought out manner. We need a strong thinker, negotiator, and listener, someone who can take advice from experienced people, then make a clear, concise decision. We do not need anymore"shoot from the hip", "bring it on","let the chips fall where they may" kind of guy. That might be fun in a beer bar playing darts, but not running a great country like ours. Hillary with all her experience, connections and foreign trustworthiness is beginning to sound very good now.

Hillary made the right vote!

The more I read the comments made before mine,I come to
wonder why are so many people are after
Hillary Clinton? I do think that some
elements post things up and blame it on
her campain to creat dislike of her,
intelligent people know the games that
the republican party is playing.You guys
did it to Al Gore,John Kerry,former
senator Maxclelan of Georgia and many
others in the past,but this time it is
not going to work 'cause the people the
country can not be played again.For the
person that said that a woman or
black man can never win in the southern
red states,what does that say about the
way that some people still live in the
20th century but with 1st century way of
thinking. What are afraid of electing
a woman as the next president? We will
never know untill we try. So guys chill
from her,Hillar Clinton and wish her a
happy 60th birth day.