The new Iran intel report disrupts Clinton's new strategy.
Comment: 2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
http://www.votenic.com
The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.
Comment: 2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
http://www.votenic.com
The Only Poll That Matters
Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.
Comment: 2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
Comment: I think that any candidate that feels using a nuclear weapon is a viable option under any circumstance should not even be considered as a candidate. Nuclear weapons kill indiscrimantly,- hundreds of thousand of innocent people. It is just unacceptable.
Comment: I think that any candidate that feels using a nuclear weapon is a viable option under any circumstance should not even be considered as a candidate. Nuclear weapons kill indiscrimantly,- hundreds of thousand of innocent people. It is just unacceptable.
Comment: good ole usa borrowing money from communist china to expand their oil empire in the middle east. this is all a smoke screen and americans are dumb if they don't understand the fight is over what is under the ground. go ron paul!
Comment: good ole usa borrowing money from communist china to expand their oil empire in the middle east. this is all a smoke screen and americans are dumb if they don't understand the fight is over what is under the ground. go ron paul!
Comment: good ole usa borrowing money from communist china to expand their oil empire in the middle east. this is all a smoke screen and americans are dumb if they don't understand the fight is over what is under the ground. go ron paul!
Comment: The problem with Obama is exactly what Hillary Clinton has said....at least she has showed up to vote on these issues. instead, Obama has ducked them, and then convieniently issued statements on what he "would have done" or how he "would have voted". I would much rather have a person who at least shows up and states their positions openly, as president....then one who never shows up to begin with. As for John Edwards, he has flip/flopped on so many issues he has practically become the "Mitt Romney" of the DNC. Bootom line, if Democrats want to win in 2008, they will nominate Clinton, if they want to lose again, nominate Obama or Edwards...after 8 years of Bush, you would think they would want to win for a change.
Comment: Senator Clinton needs to realize that Pres. Bush is not open to communicate all that is really going on and because of that, she should not side with Pres. Bush at all. For all we know, the Pres. and other Repubs. may say something to ambush her! But, neverthe less, she is a leader.
About why can't she say she made a mistake or is in error...most common management training suggests to never admit openly to mistakes. It's no wonder many, not just Senator Clinton, will not admit to mistakes or errors. And, wouldn't you want to be correct as much as possible, common! Be terrified at Iran, and those who want to hurt America. All of us Americans need to be as objective as possible and not judge on emotions. Thank YOU!
Comment: Why can't Hilary Clinton ever acknowledge a mistake of judgment or a re-evaluation of position. Her Iran attack on others is the lates example of her constant need to be correct and abuse those who question or hold her accountable. These are not quality of a leader, are terrifying to me, and should be of concern to all.
Comment: Why can't Hilary Clinton just acknowledge an error or mistake (no one is perfect) rather than her continual attempt to attack her opponents and defend her demonstrablely contradictory or chnaged positions on topics. This level of "need to be right" paranoia is terrifying to me and a major concern for any effective leader to possess.
Comment: WHICH CANDIDATE CAN HANDLE THIS SITUATION BEST AND WHY? Provide PROOF; WHO HAS THE BEST SOLUTION??
WITHOUT RUSSIA IRAN WOULD HAVE NOTHING. Why can't the pubic see that the real threat are the break-away republics of Russia(most notably the 5 Muslim States in Central Asia and the Ukraine)crime families in Eastern Europe and the technological advancement of China. Iran, Pakistan, India, all countries in Africa have no means of deploying a successful nuclear attack. Let's take care of the nuclear, chemical and biological weapons that already exist not on those that do not exist. I really do not want to mention Iraq, but we are taking are eye of the real threat again
Comment: There is only one solution to this problem, the removal of the Iranian regime. However, we can not "do it" for them, the Iranians themselves have to" do it", with the world's support. The people under 35 want change in Iran, they want to live like the "Beach Boys", and have big dreams like Donald Trump, they want their universities to be free where ideas can be argued without fear of repression. Let's learn from Iraq. We began sanctions against Hussein and then began with weapon inspectors. These actions are not effective. They just make the general population weaker(those who want change) and make the dictator stronger. If the Iranian people do not want change we cannot force them, it will just make things worse. The regime has to be removed as quickly as possible from within. There is no other alternative. Targeted airstrikes will just empower the dictatorship and turn pro American sentiment in the country. We need to let the Iranian people know that we will help them target the regime. As long as the regime is in place, it is always going to be a threat to the region and the rest of the world. Nukes or no nukes. Now is time to move, while America still has a strong military presence in Iraq.
Comment: If GW's intelligence estimate was wrong the first time, don't you think we should step back and not jump to another wrong conclusion. Ahmadnutjob is bent on killing the infidel.
Comment: Republican talking points on Iran? Hello, there should only be American talking points on Iran and there can only be one president at a time. Bipartisanship beyond the shoreline is still not only a nice idea, its vital to our national security. Candidates who don't understand this, dem or GOP are idiots.
Comment: What short memories most people have - what did Hilary accomplish during 'Bill's' 8 years in the White House? Wasn't she suppose to reform the "health care system" for Americans without health insurance? Do any of you suppose that Bin Laden just appeared when GWB got elected? The problem with many Americans is that they have very short memories on the main issues that face this country. We are so conditioned by the 'media' to judge someone based on how they 'look' instead of what they accomplish. Bad things in history will indeed be repeated as many times as necessary until we humans start to remember what happened in the past and learn from it.
Comment: Old Bag, you say? Don't know if I'll vote for Hillary, think I'll wait and see and analyze what all the candidates have to offer, there's still time you know. But, let us look objectively and rationally before we think about mudslinging the personal quips. That's simplistic ridicule, leave that to the politicians, they're good at that. Besides when they do it, it has some factual basis and at least it sounds somewhat itelligent. Geeez, maybe it's a good thing you can't vote yet!
Comment: i BELIEVE THAT HILLARY AND WITH THE HELP OF BILL CLINTON CAN STOP THIS WAR THAT IS NOT NECESARY OR BENEFICIAL TO TAX PAYERS.
Comment: How? How will Hillary stop 'this war'?
Comment: America, Please be intelligent enough not put an extremist like HC in the White house. If you think GWB was bad and extreme just wait until super B gets in there. I thought it was obvious what kind of person she was as the first lady and the way she comes across in public. America can do better and I hope they do. If I can become American fast enough I know who I will vote for and it won't be her. She is wrong on international issues and domestic issues. She says she will go after the rich but politicians always say that and then they go and squeeze the middle class. I think she is anti middle class, anti family and a rich spoiled old bag who is trying to say what ever it takes to get elected. Most politicians do say what ever they can to get elected and I would think that it is best to choose the lesser evil. Who ever is going to take less money away from our family and who ever is going to do what it takes to protect freedom. Who ever gets in is going to be challenged by the psyco facists anyway. The free World needs someone who will hit back hard enough that the scum will go back to hide in the mountain caves they live in. HC does not have it and never will.
Comment: One think is for sure no more W :-) THANK GOD
Comment: OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT ...At least he can pronounce nuclear and he can speak English unlike YOUR PRESIDENT ..... What Bush did about the Middle East is creating chaos and death. He lied and lied and lied......
Comment: I???ll take a shrub any time over a terrorist sympathizer!
Comment: Afterglow :OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT ...At least he can pronounce nuclear and he can speak English unlike YOUR PRESIDENT ..... What Bush did about the Middle East is creating chaos and death. He lied and lied and lied......What about all the other country that are ready to develop nuclear weapons ? Is your Shrub going to invade them as well?
Comment: I agree people need to wake up, but they need to look in a mirror. Hmm, decisions decisions. Vote for a criminal or a man who won???t pledge allegiance to the very country he wants to represent as president? If he won???t pledge allegiance to the U.S., what country WILL he pledge allegiance to? Gee, somewhere in the middle east?
Comment: I keep hearing all you folks talk about the " Bush Adm. fear tactics". That man stood on a mound of 3000 dead bodies in New York and he had to look this nation in the eye and decide which direction he was going to take it. Call it what you want, but unless your one of those wacko, nutjobs, who believes that our government was behind 911, you can't classify anyone's effort to defend this nation as "fear tactics". Were you not afraid already on 911? Besides, many of you should open your eyes to the fact that we went into Iraq so we could be next to Iran and apply "pressure" . I know none of you like this because we never found thoe damn wmd's. But you have to wise up and face the fact that sometimes in politics you have no good options. Bush could not stand there in front of the American people and say "look folks. We need to get to Iran because right now they are the greatest threat we face because they have alot of oil and they can fund alot of terrorism. So let's jump into Iraq and see if that gets there attention". You can't say this in public office because you will spoil any chance whatsoever at a diplomatic solution and you simply encourage them rachet up efforts to go nuclear. After 911, people like AKMADEANA=JIHAD have to be taken muuch more serioulsy. And I will vote for no one who who does not defend the place where I live...................even if it means sending people to die.
Comment: lrlopez, you're the one who needs to wake up. Not that I'm a big fan of Bush, but at least he did something about the middle east and is willing to do something about Iran. Gee, should the White House pretend that it isn't a threat like Carter did?
Comment: Im not sure how I am going to vote this go arouns. I am sure its not for Hillery. The more she talks the more i see "The Look" I get the feeling she wants the President so bad she will say and do anything to get it. Its a feeling I get when the Creepy guy down the street looks at you in the store, or the feeling you get after seeing roaches run when u turn on a light...ewwwwww type feelin... Do we really want anyone controlling our lifes, who gives us that feeling?>
Comment: You Dirty Rotten Scoundrels. What about Bushs strategy, he is the one that has been pushing the ajenda
because if we dont have an enemy, they dont have a leg to stand on. Why would you pull Hillary into this because she is the first women that will become President and would be a fine intelligent one at that.
God I've missed thinking of my President as intelligent. For years we ve had The Emperor with no clothes
reaaly guys get use to it, she will be President and my Macho self will gladly vote for the eloquent and gutsy
Former First Lady. What A Women our soon to be President, God Bless America we will finally wake up
Comment: there is only one solution! Remove all old politicans i.e. Hillary et al. from office and purge the WH of cold war era theoreticians. Clintonistas and Bushites leave now while you still know everything..... like teenagers.
Comment: There is only one solution to this problem, the removal of the Iranian regime. However, we can not "do it" for them, the Iranians themselves have to" do it", with the world's support. The people under 35 want change in Iran, they want to live like the "Beach Boys", and have big dreams like Donald Trump, they want their universities to be free where ideas can be argued without fear of repression. Let's learn from Iraq. We began sanctions against Hussein and then began with weapon inspectors. These actions are not effective. They just make the general population weaker(those who want change) and make the dictator stronger. If the Iranian people do not want change we cannot force them, it will just make things worse. The regime has to be removed as quickly as possible from within. There is no other alternative. Targeted airstrikes will just empower the dictatorship and turn pro American sentiment in the country. We need to let the Iranian people know that we will help them target the regime. As long as the regime is in place, it is always going to be a threat to the region and the rest of the world. Nukes or no nukes. Now is time to move, while America still has a strong military presence in Iraq.
Comment: Well said eddiewhere! Now which presidential candidate is the most capable and most likely to take this path?
Comment: Anybody who thinks Iran is no longer a threat is obviously unaware of current events, their agenda, and their intentions for the Israel, Britain, and the west. Their leadership has only one goal, as they've always had: to destroy Israel and any western non-Islamic state or nation. I recommend to anybody who hasn't seen the documentary "Obsession, radical Islam's war against he West", buy it immediately. You will never look at the middle east the same again...
Comment: Anybody who thinks Iran is no longer a threat is obviously unaware of current events, their agenda, and their intentions for the Israel, Britain, and the west. Their leadership has only one goal, as they've always had: to destroy Israel and any western non-Islamic state or nation. I recommend to anybody who hasn't seen the documentary "Obsession, radical Islam's war against he West", buy it immediately. You will never look at the middle east the same again...
Comment: WITHOUT RUSSIA IRAN WOULD HAVE NOTHING. Why can't the pubic see that the real threat are the break-away republics of Russia(most notably the 5 Muslim States in Central Asia and the Ukraine)crime families in Eastern Europe and the technological advancement of China. Iran, Pakistan, India, all countries in Africa have no means of deploying a successful nuclear attack. Let's take care of the nuclear, chemical and biological weapons that already exist not on those that do not exist. I really do not want to mention Iraq, but we are taking are eye of the real threat again.
Comment: There is only one solution to this problem, the removal of the Iranian regime. However, we can not "do it" for them, the Iranians themselves have to" do it", with the world's support. The people under 35 want change in Iran, they want to live like the "Beach Boys", and have big dreams like Donald Trump, they want their universities to be free where ideas can be argued without fear of repression. Let's learn from Iraq. We began sanctions against Hussein and then began with weapon inspectors. These actions are not effective. They just make the general population weaker(those who want change) and make the dictator stronger. If the Iranian people do not want change we cannot force them, it will just make things worse. The regime has to be removed as quickly as possible from within. There is no other alternative. Targeted airstrikes will just empower the dictatorship and turn pro American sentiment in the country. We need to let the Iranian people know that we will help them target the regime. As long as the regime is in place, it is always going to be a threat to the region and the rest of the world. Nukes or no nukes. Now is time to move, while America still has a strong military presence in Iraq.
Comment: I am Glad Hilary's Judgement was exposed once again. This is another example of how America is desparate for CHANGE!!!!! We must get rid of these people who want to keep us afraid. How can a people who are always living in fear be free??? The republican agenda to convince our nation to give up our liberties while in a fearful trance is turning on its head. All involved in this agenda, Democrat or Republican should be cast out, never to return again.
Comment: Unbelievable! It is ridiculous to have such an emotional voting public in our advanced civilized society. Like a bunch of Barbarians, we want to fight fight fight, because it takes less brain power. Thats what we teach our children correct? We teach them to defend themselves, but foremost we teach them to solve their propblems rationaly. High emotion and logic rarely coexist in the same space if ever. Arent we tried of being controled by fear? People complain about the Holocost, but the same kind of paranoid tactics was used on the German people and created an atmosphere of Hate, emotion and fear, of which the Holocost could exist.
Comment: The Intel Report only stated that Iran had stopped "Weapons!" - What about their Uranium Enrichment for "Energy?" - There are different grades of Uranium. So the Question is still out there and needs to be
answered - so he has a bunch of Shells sitting around but what about the type of Uranium being produced. Bush is right and alot of people may be eating their words - according to Uranium Grade Levels and the Policies that surround them. True in fact the "Weapons" program was officially ended but lets see about the Grade of Uranium being produced.
Comment: The Intel Report only stated that Iran had stopped "Weapons!" - What about their Uranium Enrichment for "Energy?" - There are different grades of Uranium. So the Question is still out there and needs to be
answered - so he has a bunch of Shells sitting around but what about the type of Uranium being produced. Bush is right and alot of people may be eating their words - according to Uranium Grade Levels and the Policies that surround them. True in fact the "Weapons" program was officially ended but lets see about the Grade of Uranium being produced.
Comment: I think the auother and Obama, Edwards and Dodd forgot about out troops. The Iranian Gaurd are killing our troops at the behest of Mahmoad Ahmadineajad. Ahmadinejad denies there was a Holocost and wants to kill Jews.
Isn't Clinton's vote more about our troops and a mad man no matter nuclear material or not? He is evil and I consider him a terrorist. Anyone who condones the deaths of our troops are crazier then Ahmadinejad. I think Clinton made the right vote, after all it was to declare him a terrorist. What would the other Democratic candidates call him, friend?
RRH, Connecticut
Comment: Agree that Clinton lacks humility. On this issue though I think she does not have to humble herself. She just needs to not come off so defensively. The vast majority of Democratic Senators voted with her on the amendment. She needs to better explain her reasoning on the vote, sum it up to voters in a few senetences and keep it to the point of the amendment, not allow her rivals to tie it so closely to the nuclear arms.
Comment: Mr Bush lacks the humility and judgment to solve political problems, I see the same in Hilary Clinton. Hilary changes positions easily, I think this is largely because she doesn't have a feel for the root of many issues and is relying on those around he for which way to proceed. I've always voted republican in the past, I served 24 years in the military. I'll be voting for Obama this time, he's got what the others have not in so many ways.
Comment: Billary Clinton should be preparing for a lamp throwing tirade and a raging temper tantrum which is well known by immediate friends and family, when Sen. Obama defeats her in the up coming caucuses as well as her ego !!!!
Perhaps she can run to Mother Bush for help !!!!
Comment: littledog ... I am not reading Time magazine anymore because they print lies and do not have the journalistic integrity to correct them. I am not talking about Karl Rove. I know who he is, what he stands for, and therefore, know to read whatever he says with a heaping spoonful of salt. Instead, I am talking about Joe Klein and his false claim (which parrot's Republican talking points) on the Democratic position on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The truth is that the Democratic bill says the following:
'CLARIFICATION OF ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE OF NON-UNITED STATES PERSONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES'
Sec. 105A. (a) Foreign to Foreign Communications-
(1) IN GENERAL - Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, a court order is not required for electronic surveillance directed at the acquisition of the contents of any communication between persons that are not known to be United States persons and are reasonably believed to be located outside the United States for the purpose of collecting foreign intelligence information, without respect to whether the communication passes through the United States or the surveillance device is located within the United States.
So, while the Democratic version of the bill clearly says that a court review is NOT REQUIRED for intelligence gathered from individual foreign surveillance targets, Klein claimed that it did. Both he and Time refuse to make a clear correction and retraction. As a result, readers of Time, who do not care to read beyond Time magazine and Klein's column, will believe a lie.
That is why I do not read Time magazine anymore.
Comment: I may be wrong, but I think you are still reading it.
Comment: They really don't get it.... any of them. The majority of Americans aren't an older generation, disconnected, looking for the old bygone days, and easily swayed by phantom promises of a return to such times by disaffected politicians. The vast majority of voting Americans are intelligent, connected, and computer literate independent thinkers who will not be swayed anymore by career, self-serving politicians who don't deliver the goods. These unproductive politicos will either change their courses dramatically and get things done, will resign gracefully (or not), or they will be replaced by honest individuals who truly desire to make America a better place to live.
Comment: i must explain the difference in threats to you. 'mutual assured destruction' worked w/ the soviets because they, like us, liked to go to the movies, enjoyed fine meals and loved their grandchildren. in other words, they were rational. in the moslem menace, we have an enemy dedicated to destroying all that is good, holy, honorable and right. they cannot be bribed, coerced, induced or persuaded to join the fellowship of man. understand that political alliances between nations ebb and flow like the seasons, while ideologies remain unchanged.
Comment: When politicians realize that the majority of Americans are intelligent, aware, and computer savvy in this instant news techno-world, and have, as a result of the lack of service to the public that career politicians have come to provide across the past several decades, they will either change their approach to the business they should be doing but fail to do, resign gracefully (or otherwise), or they will be replaced by no-self-serving sincere Americans who truly do want what is best for America.
Comment: i must explain the difference in threats to you. 'mutual assured destruction' worked w/ the soviets because they, like us, liked to go to the movies, enjoyed fine meals and loved their grandchildren. in other words, they were rational. in the moslem menace, we have an enemy dedicated to destroying all that is good, holy, honorable and right. they cannot be bribed, coerced, induced or persuaded to join the fellowship of man. understand that political alliances between nations ebb and flow like the seasons, while ideologies remain unchanged.
Comment: Why would the NIE be made public instead of just showing the data to the House and Senate Intelligence committee and the Executive Branch? Now the international support for forcing Iran to open its nuclear enrichment program to inspection will evaporate and no good can possibly come of that. There is no way Bush could have gone to war with this info in the hands of the House and Senate Intelligence committees. If I were Iran, I would start weaponizing my uranium now that my own enemy's intelligence shot him in the foot. This kind of nonsense never happenned during the cold war, when intelligence estimates consistently showed the the Soviet capabilities to be far inferior to ours.
Comment: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATIONS FEAR CAMPAIGN OVER THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS SEEMS TO HAVE WORKED. FOR YEARS THE SOVIETS HAD HUNDREDS OF NUCLEAR ARMED MISSLES AIMED AT US. AND WE HAD A MORE THEN ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF SIMILAR WEAPONS AIMED AT THEM. THAT WAS A REAL THREAT AND GUESS WHAT, WE SURVIVED IT. NOW , A THIRD RATE COUNTRY, IRAN IS ALLEGED TO HAVE A SIMILAR CAPACITY AND EVEN AFTER WE FIND OUT IT DISCONTINUED IT'S EFFORT TO BUILD A NUCLEAR WEAPON FOUR YEARS AGO OUR PRESIDENT STILL TRYS TO SCARE US TO DEATH WITH TALK ABOUT HOW DANGEROUS IRAN IS. COME ON GEORGE,GIVE US A BREAK AND FOCUS ON THINGS LIKE HEALTH CARE, INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS, ELIMINATING TAX BREAKS FOR THE WEALTHY, EDUCATION, JOBS, ETC. WE SPEND HALF A TRILLION A YEAR ON OUR DEFENSE DEPARTMENT BUDGET. jUST PARK A TRIDENT SUB IN THE PERSIAN GULF, EXPLAIN TO IRAN THAT IT HAS THE CAPACITY TO WIPE THEM OFF THE MAP IN ABOUT 30SECONDS AND FORGET ABOUT THE IRANIAN THREAT. THEN TAKE SOME OF THAT DEFENSE DEPT. MONEY AND USE IT IN A WAY WHICH WILL IMPROVE OUR COUNTRY AND THE LIFES OF AVERAGE AMERICANS.
Comment: Yeah, but THEY didn't vote for the Bush resolution. SHE did.
Comment: 1.) Restore American's confidence and integrity in the both the institution and person of the office of President. (i.e. National Security, Civil and Privacy Rights (Patriot Act), Border Security, Foreign Trade (China), etc.)
Comment: However, after evaluating all of the democratic candidates, Obama strikes me as the one most capable of being the most successful at delivering what our country needs right now:
Comment: Let me get this straight, The Iranian Revolutionary Guard hasn???t aided the terrorists in Iraq, so it was wrong to label them a terrorist organization?
Is it wrong for a democrat to vote with the President, even when it is the right then to do for the country? Does the good of the democrat party come before the good of the USA?
That is the impression I get from these posts.
Awhile ago an opinion piece by Karl Rove was published by Time and most of the posts were about not reading the Times anymore because they had the audacity to print an opinion by a non democrat.
Have the readers of Time become so partisan, they want to refuse to grant non liberals a voice?
If liberals now put the good of the democrat party ahead of what???s good for the USA. I fear for the future of my children and grandchildren.
Comment: Let me get this straight, The Iranian Revolutionary Guard hasn???t aided the terrorists in Iraq, so it was wrong to label them a terrorist organization?
Is it wrong for a democrat to vote with the President, even when it is the right then to do for the country? Does the good of the democrat party come before the good of the USA?
That is the impression I get from these posts.
Awhile ago an opinion piece by Karl Rove was published by Time and most of the posts were about not reading the Times anymore because they had the audacity to print an opinion by a non democrat.
Have the readers of Time become so partisan, they want to refuse to grant non liberals a voice?
If liberals now put the good of the democrat party ahead of what???s good for the USA. I fear for the future of my children and grandchildren.
Comment: Yes, there are a number of other issues, however I think the ones I mentioned are the most of the major ones that are conisistently discussed. After carefully considering, not only the political accomplishments and abilities of the candidates but their personalities and public personas, who is best qualiifed to lead our nation, I land squarely on Obama. I believe all of the other candidates will play vital roles in helping to accomplish the afore metioned initiatives, but in heart, I think he's the one who can be the catalyst in moving this agenda forward to completion.
Comment: Can you tell me what opposing the Iranian help to the Iraq militants has to do with whether they're developing nukes or not? That's what Hillary voted on, and Obama didn't think was important enough to show up for. Tell you what, Obama's new sttrategy may damage Hillary enough, but I for one have gone from him being my close second pick to John Edwards, whose attacks are real and principled, rather than the press-supported empty suit that is Obama.
The press, MSNBC and Newsweek in particular, decided to enter the race in favor of Obama back when Boss Russert pulled the trigger a month or so ago. Al Gore 2000 = Hillary 2008. Everything is spun against her.
Comment: IMO - I listened to the entire debate on NPR yesterday and have been closely following most of the democratic candidates. Off the top, if political parties had an All-Star team, this current slate of candidates would make a strong team. Each one brings something of genuine substance to the table:
Dodd - Elder statesman, fluent in several languages, highly respected by both Dems. and Rep.; exceptional analytical skills; extremely knowlegable on foreign policy.
Biden - Another elder statesman, highly respected by both Dems. and Rep.; straight talker; history of strong leadership in the Senate.
Clinton - A politician's politician; polished and calculating (to a fault in some cases); strong in the face of adversity.
Obama - Charismatic; politically ecletic (shows evidence of having elements of the best qualities his opponents have to offer); sincere; unifying (ability to bring opposing sides together)
Richardson - Strong foreign policy experience
Kucinich - Abstract thinker (thinks out of the box)
Edwards - Likeable; fighter; humble yet confident
Comment: Now, I do like Hillary, but I will be voting for John Edwards! I just can not believe that some are saying they would switch parties though. I mean I watch and listen to the republicans running and all I can do is laugh, they are all a joke. Come on Ron Paul, I mean I will admit he has come up with a few good running points, but this is a guy that has switched parties from independent to republican a few times and has run for president with different views each time. Romney, well lets see the man is only looking out for the rich, yes he has made all of his money on the corporations and one of the largest investors in america so anything other than him saying, I will be looking out for the interest of the big corporations money and my own is a lie. Huckabee, wow self proclaimed "America's Minister" give me a break! Then there is Rudy the self proclaimed "America's Mayor" HA HA! Before he turned 911 into his own reality tv show the people of New York wanted him out (Just look at his record). For those of you that still believe that a republican will be conservative with your tax money you are crazy. I mean come on the last congress that was majority and Bush wasted more tax money than any other in history. The only difference when it comes to spending tax money between the parties is where the money goes, Republicans hand it out to the large corporations and the dems hand it out to human services. We need a president that is willing to put his or her butt on the line to get america back on track for everyone. JOHN EDWARDS 2008
Comment: My analogy to Bush's claim that his foreign policies resulted in Iran's abandoning nuclear weapons production:
A dog barks when one walks by his house and every time someone walks by his house, he barks. Obviously the barking resulted in the passerby's decision to keep walking and abandon their idea to hurt his master.
Comment: Let the voters see her notes from when she was first lady. She has a lot of gall to criticize Obama for not being qualified to be pres. Lets nominate Laura Bush. She is as qualified as Hillary, and twice as classy, and there is no bitchy factor.
Comment: Hillary may me married to "Slick Willy," but she surely isn't Mrs. Slick Willy. Anyone can see right thru her. I backed her campaign for the first few months, but I am beginning to have my doubts about her leadership abilities. In fact, I may even change parties, as ridiculous as that may sound. Ron Paul is da man! I wish he had greater public support. He has all the correct answers as far as I am concerned. Even the "Huckster" from Arkansas is looking better in my eyes too. Remember, we had a HillyBilly from ARK once before and he turned out to be a good president. What this country doesn't need is Aunt Rudith from NYC, Hasbeen McCain or a Fred (where have you been) Thompson. I trust the American people will make a choice that will take us on a path different from this most horrible administration in the history of this great Nation.
Comment: I agree that Ms. Clinton has no core values, no basic passionately held beliefs that she will go to the wall for. She is JUST a politician. And what is more , she is hide-bound by her big money backers in New York. Anything that threatens Israel is , by her and her backer's thinking , a threat to us. Iran is a threat to Israel, therefore must be a threat to us, and must be bombed into oblivion.This explains her vote to invade and occupy Iraq, and she will do the bidding of Israel if elected.Neither Israel nor Mexico, nor any other country should have a mole in the white house. I do not trust her.Give me Richardson, Biden or Dodd.Forget the pretty-boy trial lawyer, and forget the junior senator from Illinois.Have we Americans lost our senses in having these three leading in popular sentiment?Please, our country deserves better-even Ron Paul would make a better president than these three
Comment: dwehde: Clinton was impeached after a republican witch hunt into the whereabouts of his nether regions, you'll remember. That is not a character strike against his wife. What is a strike against her is her obvious political power ambitions. She is nothing but a power monger, and every action she has taken in her political life proves it. I wouldn't trust her to run a MOMS club, much less a country I love.
Comment: Dr. Ron Paul has the best answer, stop the war, bring our troops home from all over the world now and make our enemies or trading partners. Stop policing the world! Spend that money we waste on foreign aid on Americans instead! PEACE PROSPERITY AND LIBERTY. He???s crazy BUT THE ONLY HOPE FOR AMERICA! Join the revolution teaparty07
Comment: Hillary Clinton? All I see here is a politician. I don't think she has the answer to anything other than how to manipulate her way thru the democratic party. And something I don't understand, why is Bill Clinton revered so highly in politics today? Doesn't anyone remember that he was impeached? That's not too much to be proud of.
Comment: The most REAL THREATS sit in the White House and the former CNO's residense [which appears on no Google maps].... that is when the former's not on vacation and the latter isn't shooting his friends or having Dr. Frankenstein recharge his batteries!
Comment: Barack has the best answer. Surgical strikes on REAL threats, not more war propaganda. We don't need more war, but the reality is that there ARE real threats that we NEED to eliminate when given a clear chance without killing lots of civilians.
Comment: Why can't the pubic see that the real threat are the break-away republics of Russia(most notably the 5 Muslim States in Central Asia and the Ukraine)crime families in Eastern Europe and the technological advancement of China. Iran, Pakistan, India, all countries in Africa have no means of deploying a successful nuclear attack. Let's take care of the nuclear, chemical and biological weapons that already exis,t not on those that do not exist. I really do not want to mention Iraq, but we are taking are eye of the real threat.
Comment: zstroud,
I don't see any bias towards Clinton. I rather think that her front runner status has mainly achieved by mainstream media's overwhelmingly reporting on her and her alone.
Now, she started to receiving some real reporting about her, her supporters finally started to blame the mainstream media.
If you really pursue fairness, you should blame mainstream media giving so much attention on Hillary. It has made her so arrogant and exude with a sense of entitlement. She and her camp think by default she should be the nominee.
Comment: Meh, whoever is losing always complains about "media bias" (the Obama camp was saying that over the summer). I'd rather vote for the best candidate. So far, that's not Clinton.
Comment: Meh, whoever is losing always complains about "media bias" (the Obama camp was saying that over the summer). I'd rather vote for the best candidate. So far, that's not Clinton.
Comment: So Clinton risks American lives by going along with Bush...and gets it wrong...again. She has never beaten the Republicans in anything in her life. She is the Democrat most hated by Republicans but also has the most conservative voting record. In other words, she capitulates on core Democratic principles and still manages to anger Independents and Republicans.
Comment: Very pathetic! If you paid more attention to news rather then Hillary beating a Republican you might remember as we speak our troops are dying because the Iranian Gaurd has weaponsprovided by Mahmoad Ahmadinejad. This vote was to declare him as a terrorist. Do you think we should revise that now and call this maniac a friend. He also thinks the Holocost was made up by the West. God, you people!
RHann
Comment: I agree with the other posts. How can this be called journalism? The biases against Clinton are not only unfair, they are a danger to the democratic process. Please take responsibility, and practice fair coverage of the candidates.
Comment: I totally agree. Where is the article explaining Obamas absenteeism, how about his pac fund or how about an article on the media bias against Clinton. If its a smear against her its news, if its a negative against another candidate its back page. the current media coverage makes me sick and I can only hope that Americans will see through this murky mess we call journalsim.
Comment: I'm with zstroud, and getting tired of it too. I can't watch Chris Mathews anymore he has lost his mind.
Comment: hey newsweek. I got a new website for you. Its www.newsweek.barackobama.com . You might as well join the campaign with all of the positive coverage you give this alleged golden boy. I got it. Why dont you report on all of the votes this guy ducks instead of a passing parenthesis of how it was a mistake. I challenge you. Do some journalism on ALL candidates. Show some journalistic integrity.
Comment: I'm an Obama supporter, but unfortunately have to agree with zstroud. Newsweek has consistently positioned Obama in a positive light, Hillary in a negative and Edwards as an also ran. I think it's time our media outlets dropped the pretense of objectivity and just admit they are actively campaigning.
Comment: HEAR, HEAR! Some basic objectively in reporting and at least the appearance of balance and fairness in covering the candidates is we want and expect from Newsweek.
Comment: Obama for president!!! Don't be mad, be glad.
Enter comments if any for reporting abuse
STRATEGIES Isn't it ironic: Xerox is hoping it can profit by teaching companies how to reduce their printing.
Sponsored by
|
Sponsored by
|
Loading Menu
