hillary clinton = george w. bush

During the CNN/YouTube debates, Hillary was asked the following question:

"In 1982 Anwar Sadat travelled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since. In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you BE WILLING to meet separately without precondition during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"

Hillary Clinton said NO.

For many years, the Bush administration has been refusing to dialogue with these leaders and Hillary Clinton NOW wants to follow the same policy.

In Hillary's NO explanation, she has cited the fear of being used for propaganda, the prestige of the US Presidency and 'testing the waters'. These are excuses for ARROGANCE and COWARDICE.
Richard Nixon didn’t think so, Ronald Reagan didn’t think so, Henry Kissinger didn’t think so and John F. Kennedy didn’t think so either. Even the elegant Nancy Pelosi didn't have a problem with being used for propaganda when she went to Syria, as long as she achieved her objective. It turned out Condoleeza Rice needed information from Pelosi prior to her Middle East visit, and George Bush told Nancy Pelosi secretly that he did not personally criticize her trip to Syria. This is the kind of arrogance and cowardice Hillary wants to bring to the White House.

We were very disturbed by Hillary's response, which was a sharp retraction from what she said on October 31, 2006 at the Council of Foreign Relations:
"Direct Negotiations (with enemy states) are not a sign of weakness; they are a sign of leadership."
"The Bush Administration's refusal to talk to anyone on the evil side, as some have called it idealistic, I call it dangerously unrealistic."

In New Hampshire, she also said: "You don't refuse to talk to bad people. I think life is filled with uncomfortable situations where you have to deal with people you might not like. I'm sort of an expert on that. I have consistently urged the president to talk to Iran and talk to Syria. I think it's a sign of strength, not weakness." WELL, MAYBE THE PRESIDENT IS STILL ‘TESTING THE WATERS’ as she suggested in the debate. So why was she criticizing the president?

Mrs. Clinton is notorious for this kind of naivety and irresponsibility.
Like AUTHORIZING the war and REBRANDING herself later as an ANTI-WAR CANDIDATE.
Like ASKING HOW we were going to GET OUT OF IRAQ AFTER, instead of BEFORE SHE AUTHORIZED THE WAR that has so far cost over 340 BILLION DOLLARS, a HUGE DEFICIT and MORE AMERICANS KILLED THAN ON 9/11.

Thankfully OBAMA GAVE HER A GOOD SPANKING during the debate for childish judgment. Now if she has repented and she’s willing to learn from an extremely intelligent man, maybe he’ll pick her as his Vice-President, to the satisfaction of most Americans.

God, no! Please don't pick Hillary for VP. It's not a good idea. Can you imagine the "ethics" clash?

These two people have absolutely nothing in common as it relates to integrity, honesty, ethics, etc. She would be trying to corrupt Obama or trying to operate behind his back (similar to Cheney) the whole time. It's not worth the distraction to Obama.

No, no, no. I'm not anti-Hillary, I'm just pro-America. We need a clean ticket to really turn the page.

It's so obvious Hillary is cold, calculating and sly. It's soo obvious it bores me!!
America doesn't need anymore bulls**t from Bush's and Clinton's. They're all the same - coldhearted liars!!
I'm for Obama, man! He's the truth!

I completely agree. Open your eyes America. For the first time in a long time, you are on the cusp of getting a born genius for a President; he is intelligent, bold, well-educated and with a multidimensional view of the world and America's leadership role in it. He understands the power of military might as well as the potency of diplomacy, and he knows that speaking to those one disagrees with rather than talking about them is a sign of confidence and strength, not weakness or naivitte. This is what has been lacking in the current leadership. Go Obama, you do not need a conniving corrupted Clinton as VP. She will replicate the Cheney template. After nearly 40 years of the Clintons in politics both at state and federal levels, HRC is too set in her ways to even understand what the word ethics means. America needs a clean start. Look foward, not backwards. Obama speaks about what he will do, she repeatedly talks about what she has done. It is time to move America into the 21st century not back in the 20th century.

I'm delighted because the spat between Barack and Hillary disproves Hillary's assertion that the differences between democrats are minor.

There are two main issues here. The first is on poor judgment on National Security and the second is difference in approaches on Foreign Policy.

Obama wins all 3 points in the first one, as Clinton did show naivety by authorizing the war without asking for an exit srategy. Her campain isn't even trying to dispute this.
On the second one, Obama is new, Hillary is old, but they I'll just give them a point each, to end the debate.

Obama wins 4-1.

Colin Powell for Obama's VP!

Hillary's comment in IA today is backfiring on her! She is so polished and sly like a fox and that is where her experience ends!
As for Vice President.....has anyone noticed how "cozy" she and Edwards are??? This is what I observe....Hillary believes that should she win the nomination, Edwards would make a good VP for her. Elizabeth would not present female competetion.
Can you imagine that she would even consider Michelle Obama as the VP's wife..... HO HO HEE HEE. Wouldn't that be a hoot!!
NO NO NO.... We need Barack as President and Michelle as FIRST LADY!!
Please God, make my dream come true!!!

This is just great...After Hillary brought out Madeline Albright earlier on--remember Bill Clinton Secretary of State whom the Republicans featured in a political campaign commercial shaking her booty and sipping champaign with Kim Jong Ill; the woman who told CNN's Larry King that the killing of 500,000 Iraqi children annually was a worthy price to pay,--failed to dent the post-youtube debate Obama surge, HRC has now brought out Richard Halbrooke, the man who helped her husband 'sit down' with Yugoslavia's Milosevich(sp)--the butcher of the Balkans. What does this tell you about Hillary's answer? But there is one more thing. Why is Bill Clinton pressing all those who ever worked under him to come out and defend his wife? Could this pressure be the reason why so many of them are coming out and giving 'phony' endorsements?
Go, Obama. Seriously, the Clinton camp is now in a real panic. Now is the time to watch out... They are going to come all out...out to destroy you...stay calm and alert, clearheaded and sharp with the facts. Americans will come with you regardless of what or how many paid pundits--the Carvilles, Bravilles, Bagalas or Bunnetts pontificate...
Go, go team Obama. You rock.

Obama's answers are definetly ones of a true leader. He answered all his questions with conviction, emotion and knowledge...i am definetly voting for the man...Hillary disappointed me when she said no to that question. By God, even Reagan met with our enemies..tsk tsk Hill

Any time Hillary attacks Obama it telling you that Obama is doing something right so Obama stick to what you believe because we the country need a change and Hillary is the past god speed Obama

Any time hillary start attacking Obama is because he is doing something right ao keep up the good work Obama because we need a change an Hillary is the past no matter how she tries she is acold heartedlady she is no Bill Clinton.