She got Iraq Wrong, and wants to go even further in the wrong direction by keeping a large number of troops on bases there.

She Got Iran wrong. REALLY wrong.

She got Lebanon wrong.

so far she is batting 0% in foreign policy. Apparently, no amount of "experience" can help her to make the RIGHT decisions.

She flip flopped on Pakistan, first chiding Obama for suggesting that we should consider going after bin Laden in that countrys tribal region, then, after her vilification's and war mongering opportunities blew away like the dust they were made of after the inter-agency intelligence report correctly cast Iran as a non Nuclear nation that has not attacked another county for about 250 years, turning around and saying that Pakistan is the greatest threat we face today. Certainly, it will make for less exciting AIPAC speeches for her, because she used to really whip up the bloodlust
at those meetings when she could blather on about keeping "Noting off the table" when considering war agaisnt Iran, including Nuclear War.

Too bad for her, SO good for the rest of us normal people in the US and for Iran.

She sure as hell is not going to send her daughter to fight and die in the wars she would like to start.

Well put, Steve! I completely agree.

Know this: it doesn't matter who you support or vote for.

96% of the votes cast are done so on corruptible E-voting machines that count the votes in secret. Who will be POTUS will be whomever the powers that be want in - period.

Our only resemblance to a democratic/republic is the phony dog & pony show put on to give us the illusion we have a say in who represents us - nothing could be further from the truth!

Until we fix the corrupted voting system you're wasting your time doing anything else.

If voting could change things - they'd make it illegal.

All you crazy stupid Hillary haters get use to the fact SHE will be President and then you could all hate yourselves! First Ladies know alot more than you angry voters!

Glo - setting the bar awfully high there, aren't you? Hillary knows more about foreign policy than the average voter, so OF COURSE she is qualified to be President? Excuse me if I will vote for somebody because they happen to be the best candidate and not because they happen to simply know more than I do.

I depends on what the meaning of "person on the ballot", "candidate" and "stand for election" are...

It's like the definition of the word "is". Lost of people have lots of definitions for "candidate" or "person on the ballot" to mean someone who isn't actually running for office, or in fact up for election of any kind.

Clinton simply meant one of those definitions.

And "on the ballot" "stand[ing] for election"? well that doesn't state that she thought he was running for office again, or didn't know he had already been re-elected. She was using some older definitions of the words, ballet is latingarianfrench for shoes; which of course he was on.

And what (you may ask) did she mean by "stand for election"... well, it was an off-color joke that just didn't work if you take my meaning.

I thought that her claim to fame was her vast international experience.

It looks like she has just as much inexperience and inability as Huckabee (both of them are Arkansas politicians...)

Huck apologized for the assassination and then proceeded to talk about the continued existence of martial law in Pakistan--it had been lifted weeks earlier.

Huck and Hill two inexperienced hillbillies. Both corrupt Arkansas politicians (top ten most corrupt according to judicial watch).

neither Huck nor Hill are presidential.

Both would need an intern to help them get by...pun intended.

Com-n-sense--

I'm guessing one of two things:

1. You want desperately that a woman should be president, and you sense the chance is at hand (even though nobody at her level of negatives has ever won the presidency); or

2. You want Hillary specifically to be president.

Either way, you don't even try to answer the concerns people have brought up here; you just make the argument from inevitability.

Not only does that avoid the issues, the argument from inevitability is all based on perception, like a stock that's based on confidence. Once the inevitability goes, if it does, you crash, and then you're down to substance. She could win the nomination on that, sure; she also might not. And if she does, she stands a better chance of losing than any of the Democratic candidates except for Kucinich and Gravel.

If she's nominated, I hope she wins. But in the meantime, I just hope Democrats will think very hard about what it could be like to sit around with blank stares the morning after the '08 election, consoling themselves with the "message" they sent to the public by nominating Hillary--but after another Republican win, especially if some terrorist event happens between now and then, but really, even without that. Republicans have already gotten the public conditioned to believing that things are going well in Iraq (even though the administration has signed an agreement for bases and personnel to be there INDEFINITELY), so that's not the cinch issue that Dems had counted on--and I wrote almost a year ago that Republicans would do exactly this. So Dems need to go articulate what they believe about the relationship between government and people, in very specific and concrete terms--which all of them avoid to one extent or another, and which Republicans are great at, in a demagoguic and something-for-nothing way--and they need somebody to make their case who people like and will listen to.

I'm just telling you, a Democratic win in the presidential race is nowhere near inevitable, and Democrats had better be thinking about electability. You look at Hillary's negatives, and how the campaign dynamics in the general would be, it's more than dicey. Voters in the middle--who have decided every election for at least that past quarter-century--might look at Romney as robotic, corporate, and white-bread; Huckabee as hyperreligious and from a small state (although that would be a BIG plus with a significant percentage of the electorate); Giuliani as a psycho, more Bush-Cheney than Bush-Cheney; and McCain as too tied to the failed Iraq policy and too hawkish. But set against a Hillary that half the country already hates, and that many voters would turn out just to vote _against_ (including conservative women, believe me), a lot of people in the middle would think the Republican is the lesser of two evils.

So, you want to give Republicans their best chance, nominate Hillary. I don't hate the woman at all; I think she's remarkably smart, probably would make a decent president (although she's too tied to corporations and big money, for one thing), and would be a big improvement over what we've had for the past eight years and also over any Republican candidate. But the hard reality is, she gives Republicans their best chance of winning. Argue with the numbers if you want.

That said, Hillary's not really the problem, is she? It's an ignorant electorate that accepts a backward and authoritarian government reminiscent of the very power we broke away from in the Revolution. That's the problem.

well Sen. Joe Biden did not waste any time in reacting over what Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., talked about Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf as a presidential candidate. It seems, with due respect, that both Sen. Joe Biden and Sen. Hillary Clinton don't have a vast and deep knowledge about foreign policy. Firstly Pervez Musharraf is not contesting elections and secondly Musharraf was elected -- fairly or unfairly -- president three months ago not six months.

Joe Biden has something like three decades of foreign policy experience (Senate Foreign Relations Committee, etc.) at the national level, and not as somebody's spouse. It's really not a close call.

most of coments on here about hillary come from people who probably never watch the news or really know whats going on in the world.they just go by what other people say..or do not remem ber the 90's when at least people had jobs