While I don't normally believe that response ads serve any real purpose for the American people, I will make an exception for this one.

The obvious, gross negligence of Senator Obama in his duties as chairman of the Senate oversight committee on Afghanistan should be cause for concern in the deliberations of any informed voter.

Senator Obama has railed about how he feels his political opponents dropped the ball by not finishing the war against terrorists in Afghanistan before going into Iraq, which may or may not be true.

But, if Senator Obama fails to hold even one hearing on the progress of the war against terrorism in Afghanistan because his campaign for political office started at about the same time, who really dropped the ball?

How can Senator Obama, or anyone for that matter, expect the American people to believe that he actually knows or cares about what is happening in Afghanistan?

Bad policy and bad judgment would make a bad President in any country.

You can expect ANYTHING out of Clinton at this stage of the game it is all or nothing for her,They

Oranges and apples. However, if I had to make a choice as to which was more urgent and vital I'd say that Hillary's lapse in not reading the intelligence report was far more damaging to our country. We've not only lost thousands of lives but also our country is in extremely dire financial shape because of votes like hers. Our economy is where it's at because of this war that was waged based on lies and personal political gain. Not one of the lives lost was worth it. Not one. Shame on you Hillary...

Ridiculous!!!!
She was also campaigning and not in the Senate.
Presidential race is most important beacause it is about the future of the country.

Voters in both TEXAS and OHIO need to be concerned about Clinton failure not to read National Inteligence Estimate before she casted her vote authorizing the WAR IN IRAQ. It was the greatest mistake she did. Now America has lost many lives there(IRAQ).She still needs to apologize to the American people before conceding to BARACK OBAMA tomorrow night.

Holding hearings will not change anything in Afghanistan. The only way to change Bush's failed Iraq and Afghan policies is for Democrats to win back the WH and Barack Obama is our best chance to do that. Keep campaigning!

Senator Rockefeller read the NIE and STILL voted the same as Senator Clinton. I find it disturbing that Senator Obama wants it both ways--continued attacks on Clinton for her decision but welcome the support of Senators Rockefeller, Kerry, Daschle and Kennedy.

He attended meetings and there were meetings held, he just has not "chaired" a meeting. Other people involved in the meetings have already discussed this as a non-issue.

That's the information that's being left out here.

Where are Clinton's 35 years of experience. She voted because others were voting and did not find out the truth story. 35 years of experience doing the same mistakes over and over. She can't lead this country. May God bless America.

Where are Clinton's 35 years of experience. She voted because others were voting and did not find out the truth story. 35 years of experience doing the same mistakes over and over. She can't lead this country. May God bless America.

President Bush and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee are handling the Afghanistan/NATO issue, which has hardly made much progress since 2003. Holding an oversight meeting over Europe relations (note: not necessarily NATO) might sound nice on paper, but is that what we're looking after? I thought the whole point of Clinton's criticism was that he's all words and no action so I wonder how much holding oversight meetings and talking without ability to accomplish much (what's on the table anyway?) would've accomplished--in fact, she would've probably picked a fight over how his meetings did nothing.

Last I checked, what has she really done besides a gazzillion NY State building renamings and other useless resolutions? The only one that stands out is labeling Iranian Revolutionary Guards as terrorists in a non-binding resolution.

Hardly any action at all.

Regarding National intelligence, I don't know how people accused 77 US Senators of neglecting the importance of our national security and authorizing war just be flippiing coin... Senator Obama accused his 77 fellows doing wrong at that time and he had good judment, however, he was not even qualified to make decisions. Every one could talk anything just by standing-by. He has kept 17 years good judgment on his friend - Rezko until federal prosecutor told him: sorry, senator Obama, you were wrong from DAY ONE...

I have no doubt Hillary Clinton will do anything and say anything necessary to win the nomination. Why? Because she is convinced in her mind that she is the only person who could possibly be president. The idea that someone else--someone whom the electorate seems to prefer in spite of her non-stop attacks--might be up to the job is enough to send her into another frenzy.

I have NO DOUBT this woman will engage in enough dirty tricks to pull this out, over the desires of the population. Her ego and arrogance knows no limit. I came into this nomination process not even knowing who Barack Obama was and over the last few months I have been shoved toward him by the incompetence of the Clinton machine and her on-going, shrill, at times almost hysterical, campaign speeches. I am appalled that women support a fellow woman who trades gender to win, who cries when things aren't going her way, stamps her foot in anger when someone dares to contradict or question her, and in general demonstrates on every level why some women should never succeed. She is a disgrace to independent, proud, resourceful women everywhere.

Can't even compare the two. If Clinton can't understand what her not reading the intelligence report did and then what her vote did then she sure as hell is not fit to not only not be president of the United States but she's also not fit to serve as U.S. Senator!
Obama never holding a subcommittee meeting on Afghanistan because he was busy running for president in no way carries the same weight, the same irresponsibility because he did not drop bunker buster bombs on an innocent country like what Clinton did via Bush!! Also, anyone running for president must campaign and she knows that. Obama had just become a member of the submittee in January 07 when he decided to run for president and we all know the campaign trail can't wait. If that's the case why didn't Hillary Clinton not campaign and just stay in the senate and vote whenever there were votes and never miss one during this time? Also, folks want to try to make something out of Rezko matter when there is nothing, absolutely nothing pertaining to Obama. They keep saying for Obama to come clean about Rezko and he keeps saying he has, that there is nothing more, just like they keep harping on the Muslim thing when there is nothing there. Do they expect him to say he's Muslim just because they keep bringing it up bringing it up bringing it up all in effort to smear and attack.

Senator Obama is not Rockefeller. Rockefeller voted for Iraq like many others and Senator Clinton but it still was not Obama, and Obama is the one running for president. Judgment. Honor. Vision. Experience. Senator Obama, a true leader!

Isn't Senator Obama trying anything he could to accuse his rivals and gain what he wants?? He has been dancing with the biggest political fixer in Chicago for 17 years without notice...Do we still lke him to fool America another 4 years?? If some one says yes, then he/she must be blinded..

I see perfectly fine, thank you, and I will see your 17 years of nominally relationships with a person who has yet to be judged by a jury of his peers with 35 years of close, personal, and definitely criminal conspiracy of the Clintons with a host of folks.
How quickly you forget the past in your effort to shape the future.

Isn't Senator Obama talking about the present and future?? Why is he now talking the PAST now?? If so, how could he turn the page??

BTW, did Senator Obama addmit himself his relationship with Rezko was "headbone mistake"?? - 17 years mistake???

I was specifically addressing the attempt to link Obama's apparently one time dealings with a man (and not an on-going close relationship of suspicious activity) that the Clintons are attempting to paint, especially through surrogates, with the wide-spread, multi-year continual saga of Clinton corruption before and during the Presidency. I think it is truly laughable that the Rezko thing is being bandied about right now, since the guy hasn't gone to trial and there really has been no substantive evidence (in spite of a lot of digging) of any real misdeed on the part of Obama, while the Clintons and their truly opportunistic past appears off limits. Oh, I forgot--she's been vetted which, I guess, means that we aren't allowed to mention the criminal past of her close cronies or her hands-on connection to them.