Candidates FIRST reaction to situation in Georgia is very revealing.

@speakeasy (4215)
United States
August 10, 2008 5:29pm CST
When McCain and Obama were first told about Russia invading Georgia they had ver different responses. The statement from McCain was immediate and very clear - "Russia had crossed “an internationally recognized border into the sovereign territory of Georgia” and should “unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces,” said Mr. McCain". The response from Obama was quite different - "“Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint and to avoid an escalation to full-scale war,” Mr. Obama said in the statement, which focused on negotiations and concluded that “all sides should enter into direct talks on behalf of stability in Georgia.”" Later, after having time to confer with his advisors , Obama "did harden his rhetoric". Here is a link to the full story - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/us/politics/10react.html?th&emc=th The question here is: In an emergency, do we NEED a President who's first reaction to a situation is "shame on you, let's all sit down and talk about it" or do we need one who will stand up and say "you went too far and what you did was wrong"? Personally, in a crisis, I would rather have someone who has the experience and knows what to say and do (even if he does need to hire some advisors for economic issues" in charge; than an economist who has to wait to consult advisors on how to properly handle the crisis! How about you?
8 people like this
20 responses
@onlydia (2808)
• United States
10 Aug 08
I believe what Obama was saying is way better then McCain. As McCain would sooner go to war then sit down and talk about it. They both said the same thing in a way. All's you have to do is read between the lines. One is sharp and one is not. Now when it comes to them I do like Obama. McCain is to old for office. There will be no change with him. It will be all the same old stuff. other countries are like are kids. You get more with talking then yelling. Plus it's none of are buisness anyway. Do you think that if we started fighting here some other country would come in and tell us your wrong? Heck no the woman here would mess them up. Keep your nose in your own back yard and you should be ok. The crisis is here in the USA jobs going to Mexico and china. What are we do then?
3 people like this
@Taskr36 (13925)
• United States
11 Aug 08
"other countries are like are kids. You get more with talking then yelling" Now I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. I've watched parents who try and talk, or negotiate with misbehaving children. While it may work occasionally, it's often just pathetic. When a parent firmly demands their child stop misbehaving and sit down, the child listens. I really think you are right about other countries often being like children, but I think we need to be firm in how we deal with them if we want to be taken seriously. Was Reagan too old for office? He's been our oldest president so far and he's well known as one of our best. Do you think people would remember his speech if he said "Mr. Gorbachev, I think now would be a good time to show restraint so things in Berlin don't escalate"? McCain's reaction to this is much more similar to the "Tear down this wall" demand by Reagan.
2 people like this
@Taskr36 (13925)
• United States
11 Aug 08
"Keep your nose in your own back yard and you should be ok." That pearl of wisdom led to WWII. Nobody batted an eye when Russia and Hitler invaded Poland. Nobody said a word when Russia took over Germany, Ukraine, Belarus, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia... Boy, I'm sure those countries really appreciated us staying out of their business then. ParaTed's right. Obama's a wimp who would rather see one of our closest allies get massacred than step on anyone's toes.
1 person likes this
@ClarusVisum (2163)
• United States
11 Aug 08
The fact that McCain was quick to blame Russia for 100% of it is also very revealing, but you seemed to have passed right over that. So let's turn this logic around: Do you want the candidate that's going to jump to conclusions whenever there is some conflict between countries, and draw unrealistic black/white lines across situations as if world politics is that simple? Or would you rather have someone who honestly feels that all-out war should be a last resort instead of a first one?
3 people like this
@Taskr36 (13925)
• United States
11 Aug 08
I didn't realize that the border between Georgia and Russia was an unrealistic black/white line. It also seems that Russia is the one that declared an all-out war as the first resort. I think demanding that Russia cease their full invasion of out close ally is a much wiser decision than politely asking them to negotiate while they massacre civilians. If action isn't taken quickly Georgia will go back to it's Cold War status as a buffer zone where Russia can burn villages to keep other countries from reaching the mainland.
1 person likes this
@speakeasy (4215)
• United States
11 Aug 08
Even if Georgia was being "provocative"; Russia is the one who crossed the border. If we can get Russia back into it's own boundries; THEN, we can try to get negotiations going between the two countries. BUT, you can't get two parties to sit down and TALK when one of them is DESTROYING the other. And, a lot of people seem to reading things into what McCain said. He said Russia was wrong and had exceeded its authority. He NEVER said "if you don't do what we say, we are going to war"! "War" with the US was NEVER even mentioned. - So PLEASE stick to the FACTS; don't add your "own spin" on what either candidate said.
1 person likes this
• United States
11 Aug 08
I would like to hear one of the candidates or President Bush say something like this. Tactical nuclear weapons are now enroute to the battlefield. I am asking Georgia if they will publically ask us to use these weapons to destroy Russian tank divisions where ever they are and airfields in Russia from which the attacking aircraft are operating. An appeal for help at the UN by Georgia will result in the immediate nuclear attack of Russian forces. We will not attack without Georgian permission. If our help is sought, Russian forces must leave Georgia now or die. There you have it. This is what it will really take to put the Russians back in line.
2 people like this
@speakeasy (4215)
• United States
12 Aug 08
Realistically, neither candidate has the authority to say or follow up on something like that even if they did want to. Bush does; but, he won't.
1 person likes this
• United States
12 Aug 08
The candidates would, of course, have to precede this statement with, "If I was president, I would say,". I agree President Bush would never say this publically. However, I promise if the Russians withdraw, something like it was said privately.
• United States
12 Aug 08
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/world/europe/13georgia.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin At the above link you will find circumstantial evidence that President Bush did step up and make the Russians a promise such as I recommended, only it was done privately.
@xfahctor (14131)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
11 Aug 08
Although Obama's reaction demonstrated a seemingly stunned and unsure reaction, I feel both reactions in general were apropriate. I say this because what else are we to do? though Georgia is an ally in a way, they are not a nato nation and we are really not bound by any treaty to do anything. We have enough on our plates as it is and every thime we have tried to help out somewhere a largely ungrateful world slams us for sticking our noses in someone's business. It seems though we are already unwittingly being dragged in to it. With russia out right blaming it on us already. GALL MUCH! F-off Putin and shut your f'ing mouth! And true to form, we already have protestors out there screeming about Bush and his "war mongering" and we have not picked up a single bullet or even mentioned military intervention.
2 people like this
@Taskr36 (13925)
• United States
11 Aug 08
I'm just amazed that we're already being criticized for assisting Georgia in getting troops out of Iraq. Georgia is there helping fight a war that is largely our responsibility so I think it's only fair we help them leave to deal with problems at home. If Bush were the war monger wouldn't we be sending our own troops into Georgia instead of trying to broker a cease-fire?
2 people like this
@speakeasy (4215)
• United States
12 Aug 08
Isn't it amazing how fast these protestors jump to these conclusions! You have to state where you stand before you enter into negotiations. In this case, we said "get out of Georgia and back to your side of the border". That lets Russia know that this ONE fact is NOT negotiable; but, everything else is. It lets them know what we expect and what they can get for complying is still open for discussion. But, you have to have a starting place and a clear strong statement is required to make that starting place clear. Obama does not seem to be capable of that yet. He needs more experience and not AFTER he becomes President.
1 person likes this
• United States
11 Aug 08
I didnt have children so they could become war cas - Pictures of hurt, scared children who have become victims of senseless war
McCain has absolutely no merit to be telling Russia what they need to be doing and who is he anyways...oh yea, the Bush Administration, thats right. We really need to stop trying to played the field and stay right on home base where we belong before...because folks, the situation is that serious, while they have so many worried about gas in their car, the American economy is hanging by a string and lost all respect of so many countries, do you really think their going to come to our rescue if we try to bully Russia when we they STILL do not agree with it in Iraq, nobody likes a bully, nobody. All I can say that Russia is playing peacemaker between the two nations and we should let it be because we are not that nation we once were where people sat back and let the U.S. play mediator around the world, we are digging ourselves into a hole--please see that. Im frightened of McCain's stance and the call for NATO who blasted the serbs in their last intervention--please, I do not want to live in a nation run primarily by all the forces of the military--this is no way to live!!!!
@speakeasy (4215)
• United States
12 Aug 08
"We really need to stop trying to played the field and stay right on home base where we belong before...because folks, the situation is that serious, while they have so many worried about gas in their car, the American economy is hanging by a string and lost all respect of so many countries." Unfortunately we can not afford to sit back and ignore the rest of the world if we are to fix our own problems. The price of oil affects every nation in the world and if their costs go up, we have to pay more for things made in other countries and that hurts our economy. If it is less expensive to make things in other countries and ship them here, then our jobs WILL go across the borders and we will have higher unemployment here. IF supplies we need to produce things here in the US are reduced or cut off due to wars and fighting in other countries, once again we will face higher unemployment HERE. We have to stay involved to protect our own interests; whether we want to or not. "Russia is playing peacemaker between the two nations" - WHAT are you talking about???? Russia invaded Georgia with full military strength an dis killing everyone, military and civilians alike. They are destroying entire villages, towns, and cities. HOW is Russia "playing peacemaker"? They ARE one of the two nations!
1 person likes this
@pukaprat2 (442)
• United States
11 Aug 08
this is just one of the many things obama has said that gives a little insight as to the person he really is. i know that the things that are happening in Goergia are well small compared to what is to come but i really think that we as america need to president that wont back down from a fight. in my eyes obama isn't saying "oh lets talk" he is saying "lets see how bad this is going to get before we take action." There is just something not right with his way of thinking yet there are those out there blindly going to vote because obama hugs trees instead of cutting them down. and his b.s. about this new threat is just icying on the cake. if he is elected into the oval office all hell will break loose- literally speaking of course.
2 people like this
@speakeasy (4215)
• United States
12 Aug 08
I know; and that is really scary. If Obama is elected to office; we are in serious trouble. It is no wonder that countries that are our ENEMIES are openly endorsing this man. They know they can walk all over him and us; and, he won't do anything. If you think our country has problems now, four years of Obama as President will make the last 8 years with Bush look like a stroll through Disneyland.
@kenzie45230 (3560)
• United States
11 Aug 08
That's one of the things that scares me about Obama. He's living in la-la land, as far as I can tell...and thinks that every problem will be worked out by talking.
2 people like this
@speakeasy (4215)
• United States
12 Aug 08
Actually, I think he lives in Mr. Rogers Neighborhood AND he thinks he is Mr Rogers.
1 person likes this
@mscott (1924)
• United States
11 Aug 08
Obama seems to be the master of talking a lot and never saying anything. it seems to be hurting him much more lately as he is now consistently having to revise statements. He has the politician thing down, say what you think the people want to hear, never really say or stand for any one thing.
2 people like this
@speakeasy (4215)
• United States
12 Aug 08
Obama is a master of "words and rhetoric". In addition to his previous books, he already has another book due to be released soon! How is he expecting to actually DO his job if he is elected to the Presidency, when he will be writing his memoirs and publishing them before he even gets halfway through his term of office.
1 person likes this
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
11 Aug 08
Maybe Senator Obama should go back to school and see what negotiations have gotten this world. In post WWI countries talked about how to protect themselves and this lead to WWII. Japan was in the process of negotiating with the US when they bombed Pearl Harbor. We were negotiating with Russian over the future of Eastern Europe when they put a block aid on Berlin, We negotiated a settlement in Korea and Viet Nam after WWII and gave the communist 1/2 of each country and later had to fight a war to try to protect the sovereignty of the nations. In Africa the UN has peace keeping forces so that all sides can talk and look at the blood shed - Darfoe. When you deal form strength you get things like the peace between the Allies - Germany, and Japan after WWII. You get a Peace Treaty between Israeli , Egypt and Jordan. Negotiations only work when you have the means to back up the final settlement. To quote Ronald Reagan - No one ever attacked a country because they were stronger.
2 people like this
@speakeasy (4215)
• United States
12 Aug 08
I could not have phrased it better myself.
1 person likes this
• United States
11 Aug 08
i totally agree with you
2 people like this
@soooobored (1187)
• United States
11 Aug 08
Thanks for providing a link to the article! I am not going to say one response was "better" than the other, but I don't think there was anything wrong with Obama's response. McCain had opportunity prior to making a statement to speak with foreign policy advisor (who incidentally takes a special interest in Georgian affairs), so perhaps the information he received led him to make a stronger statement. Obama may or may not have spoken with advisors prior to making his statement (the article didn't address that), and I believe that until you have the information to make a firm stance it is smarter to be kind of neutral. So I don't see any flaw in how he handled it. Of course, New York Times has been accused of having a liberal bias. Considering the article focused its second half on McCain's preparation for his statement (including possible suspicious motives), I would agree that there is a possibility of bias here.
1 person likes this
• United States
11 Aug 08
I think you and I are just looking for different things in a president, and that's okay. You say that you want a guy who is able to answer the red phone at 3am and make a decision, where I'm looking for a guy who is wants to research and intelligently respond (and at 3am possibly hand the call over to someone more equipped!). I don't necessarily want a great "in time of emergency" president, I want someone who can help work towards our long term goals. But I respect your feelings, and completely understand the desire for a president who is willing to act strongly on a moment's notice.
1 person likes this
• United States
11 Aug 08
If a president is not capable of making instant decisions in times of emergency, then what more is he than a figure head? Presidents have advisers so that they can strengthen weak points, but I think it's pretty important that a president be quick on his feet.. I mean, he is the Commander in Chief. I am all for the future of our country, but what is the future if we cannot secure the present?
1 person likes this
• United States
11 Aug 08
I agree, Martahandey, that typically a leader need think quick on his feet. But for right now I'll settle for a leader who can fix our systematic problems, and hand off situations he is unequipped for. I really want to qualify here, and say I'm not sure Obama is "unequipped" to handle emergencies as they arise, but my point here is that our next leader doesn't need to be all-knowing, or all-powerful, so long as he knows when to say "Maybe I should pass this decision on to someone with more experience?". And I think Obama could be that guy.
1 person likes this
• United States
11 Aug 08
Speakeasy, I don't think that McCain's first response was correct. There is alot that we don't know about this military action, it is a classic he said, she said. One says that the other one attacked them, the other said that he attacked us. Why would McCain blame Russia for this attack when he didn't have the facts about this in front of him. I find it more interesting that the president of the United States took the same road as McCain, almost the same exact lines. This is just another example of why NOT of vote for McCain. He will support the Bush foreign policy (other wise know as the Bush Crusades) that hasn't worked, and has cost the American people hundreds of billions of dollars with little to show for it. This is a perfect example of what NOT to do when it comes to foreign policy: This is a part of an article from the Washington post today:The Bush administartion yesterday decried Russia's use of strategic bombers and ballistic missiles in Georgia as a "dangerous escalation" of the hostilities there, but said it will not immediately send an envoy to help mediate the crisis. If you ever want to know the difference between McCain, and Obama here it is. Obama would rather try to sit both sides down, and figure out an end to a conflict, and a resolution. McCain would rather talk about a subject before he knows what he is talking about, and get us into more wars that we can't support. Does this sound like something you want, AGAIN?
@Taskr36 (13925)
• United States
11 Aug 08
"I find it more interesting that the president of the United States took the same road as McCain" Actually, you're wrong. "Senator Barack Obama, his Democratic rival, trod more carefully, a characteristic of his approach to foreign affairs. In an initial statement released by his campaign, he did not directly blame Russia and instead offered a more measured response, which largely echoed the official comments of the European Union, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and President Bush." So who's more like Bush now? "If you ever want to know the difference between McCain, and Obama here it is. Obama would rather try to sit both sides down, and figure out an end to a conflict, and a resolution. McCain would rather talk about a subject before he knows what he is talking about, and get us into more wars that we can't support. Does this sound like something you want, AGAIN?" Actually, Obama made statements before getting all the facts. Simply put, he didn't know what he was talking about. He changed his tune once he got the full story. McCain on the other hand spoke with many people including the president of Georgia, the white house national security advisor, his own foreign policy staff, and Mark Salter. He knew EXACTLY what he was talking about when he made his statement.
1 person likes this
@speakeasy (4215)
• United States
11 Aug 08
Thank you taskr36 for pointing out that BUSH & OBAMA were the ones in agreement. So, Obama thinks like President Bush; McCain does not. If you like Bush then vote for Obama; if you want a change then McCain is the one who reacts differently.
1 person likes this
• United States
17 Aug 08
Taskr, The point of my post was to show that Obama didn't come out and attack Russia when we didn't have all the facts. McCain came out, and attacked Russia before he got all of the facts, making himself look like an idiot infront of the world. The last thing we need is another president that shoots first, and ask questions later. You say that Bush's response was more like Obama's, but the quote I used above was from the White House, and the last time I check the White House speaks for Bush. The statement from Obama, and Bush/The White House are different. Now, days later all sides changed their minds on what happened, but the knee jerk reaction of McCain did nothing to help the crisis, and may have made it worse. Obama did not have all of the facts when he made his statement, but what he said was he would not send our military first, he would send envoys instead. McCain made a forceful statement that didn't help the matter one bit. You are correct that Obama changed is tune when he got all the facts, but so did Bush, and McCain. I would really like to know how it is that McCain was able to talk the all of these people including the president of a country at war in the little amount of time that he did. The other thing I would like to know is why it is that if McCain knew EXACTLY what was going on, when the president of the United States didn't know EXACTLY what was going on? And, why did he have no problem sitting next to Putin while this was going on? Interesting questions isn't it, I find it very hard to believe that a presidental candidate has better intel, and a better foreign policy staff then the president of the United States, but we are talking about Bush here.
@AJ1952Chats (2340)
• Anderson, Indiana
12 Aug 08
Frankly, I think we should get out of the war business for awhile. If other countries such as France think that this is urgent, let them fight the war, since they sat out the one in Iraq. I like the old hippie saying of: "What if somebody gave a war and nobody came?" We need to supply weapons to the side that's in the right (Georgia) should it come to where war is necessary, but I think that talks should be tried first. If that doesn't work, then, try economic sanctions against Russia. But haven't we given enough blood, sweat, and tears from our country and its people?
@speakeasy (4215)
• United States
12 Aug 08
Everytime the US has "stayed out" of situations like this they just continue to escalate until we are dragged in and we lose more later than we would if we came in at the very beginning. Just ask any one you know who is still alive and we was around during WORLD War II. We stayed out of that one and many countries paid the price while we sat on our butts and sure enough THEY ATTACKED THE US eventhough we were "staying out" of it. Also a firm stance and statement from the very beginning WORKS! Russia is already pulling out of Georgia without us having to send in any troop just FIVE dasy after they invaded.
@robert19ph (4584)
• Philippines
11 Aug 08
[i]Hello speakeasy, With the US at the vanguard of keeping peace for democratic country it needs a good leader with good grasp in foreign policy. It has to be tough and firm in it's decision. I also like McCain statement, Russia should withdraw it's forces before any talk could materialize. The US should show that it will support it's ally in need. It is possible Russia will totally invade Georgia if the US and it's allies shows some weakness in their statement or action. And with the coming US Presidential election, Russia might just be waiting and testing the water on what the new leader will do and say. Regards.[/i]
@speakeasy (4215)
• United States
12 Aug 08
I agree that Russia may be "testing the waters" to see how our candidates react; and, how much Bush will let them get away with. Based on their responses, I think I know who RUSSIA would like to see win.
• United States
11 Aug 08
Here's my diplomatic approach. Or at least I'll try. I am NOT a big obama fan. I think he was built up by hollywood as an alternative to what we have. However, I don't think wagging a finger at someone after conflict is starting is going to do any good. Likewise, in my opinion, the time for negotiation has surpassed, at least for now. You don't wait until after a conflict starts to say let's negotiate. Changing your mind is the problem. Making a firm decision is. Not one of us can say we haven't changed our minds about something. As far as lives being lost because of a decision...yep that can happen. And let's face it folks, it's happened when good presidents have made decent choices. Let's not finger point at someone just because they have changed their mind, rather, ask why a good decision wasn't made in the first place. There are two different people here making hypothesized decisions. One wants to definitely be known as the peacemaker/negotiater. The other, the experienced war veteran. I don't know what the answer is in this situation. I will pray for all parties.
1 person likes this
@speakeasy (4215)
• United States
12 Aug 08
Even someone who wants to be known as a "piecemaker/negotiator" has to give a firm statement so that the other parties know where they stand. Then the other parties know what is and what is not negotiable. This gives them a "starting place" for negotiations. Unfortunately for Obama, he has no "firm stands" on anything. He is like a blade of grass and bends at the first breeze. ANY one who started to negotiate with him would expect him to give in and sooner rather than later. Obama still has a lot of growing up and maturing to do; someday he may be ready for the Presidency, but, not with what we are facing today.
1 person likes this
@_sketch_ (5709)
• United States
11 Aug 08
I think that Obama is a kiss-a** and just said what he did to try and make everyone happy. We don't need that kind of person in the white house. What we need is a leader. I think that McCain is as honest as a politician goes and that's what I want, honesty. I don't want someone who is going to waste time beating around the bush. I want someone who is going to face matters directly. Thank you for posting this article. I think that it really shows the true natures of the canidates.
@speakeasy (4215)
• United States
12 Aug 08
"I think that Obama is a kiss-a**" - I agree - most politicians are. "I think that McCain is as honest as a politician goes and that's what I want, honesty." I am glad you added the qualifier, "honest as a politician goes", to McCain. After he lost the nomination in 2000 and was forced by Bush and the Republican Party to remove his support from his friend Kerry in 2004, he has "changed" many of his stances and TRIED to toe the party line so that he can get elected. That is why immediate responses are a better indicater of his, and other people's, true characters. They are far more likely to say what they realy mean and feel at that time then later on when they have had time to think about and be advised about ALL the implications of their comments.
1 person likes this
@missybal (4492)
• United States
11 Aug 08
If we were dealing with two countries of more equal ability and size it would be a different story. But in this case you look at our past and present with Russia and our past and present with Georgia, and I'm sorry you need to put your foot down. A president needs to know when to be tough and when not to.
1 person likes this
@speakeasy (4215)
• United States
11 Aug 08
Exactly; and, a president needs to be able to make that decision quickly; presidents don't always have time to "run it past their advisors".
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13925)
• United States
11 Aug 08
From what I've read it seems that Obama started speaking before he knew the whole story. Then, every time he learned a little more, he released a new statement. In a campaign you can get away with such behavior, but as president, you need to make sure you have the facts straight before you risk saying something that would make you appear passive or weak. McCain made sure he had the facts straight and made a clear statement of his opinion on the matter. To me it showed leadership qualities that I feel Obama is severely lacking.
1 person likes this
@speakeasy (4215)
• United States
11 Aug 08
I have to agree; a good leader has to get the facts and make their statement. They can't keep changing statements as facts trickle in. Also, McCain was in office throughout the collapse of the USSR and is more familiar with the situation and the players. Obama has not even been in the Senate for a full term AND he has spent a lot of time running for a different office! Of course, you also cannot act like George Bush and refuse to make changes when it is obvious the facts were incorrect or have changed. McCain has changed statements he made in the past when he found out that he facts he was given were incorrect or the situation changed.
1 person likes this
• United States
10 Aug 08
Wow, that is very revealing! Thank you so much for posting this. I am a conservative myself, but have been keeping an open mind about the election, because that's the best approach in my opinion. But I do love the fact that McCain is very very experienced when it comes to external affairs, especially having to do with the military. I think that is what the United States needs right now. We are in the middle of a war.. and even if we withdraw our troops, the conflict will still remain and need attention. The state of our world right now is one where we need somebody who will stand up and do the right thing without regard for public opinion, because for the most part the public doesn't know or understand what's best for the nation or the world. (I am one of the naive public some of the times). That's very interesting though! Thanks again for posting it!
@speakeasy (4215)
• United States
11 Aug 08
The way people overcome being naive is to read and examine everything they can get their hands on - that is why I published this post - to provide one more source for people to hear what is going on. I personally believe that the first reaction a person has is far more revealing that the ones that come later. Right now, we not only have fighting going on in many places across the globe; but, in the last few years we have also had major natural disasters - earthquakes, floods, killer tornados, hurricanes, etc. A President can hire advisors for areas he is not strong in - economics, law, etc. - but, you cannot have a President who reacts to a crisis one way and then after he has time to be advised by his staff changes his position. In a crisis you do not always have the luxury of time. You have to act NOW and you HAVE to be right. Changing your position later can cost people their lives. We still have plenty of time before the actual election - so keep your eyes open and make a little sheet with both candidates names and start putting down little pluses and minuses along with little notes about why you rated them plus or minus. By the end of October, you should have a clear view of which candidate you believe is best for our country and you will be making an informed decision when you go to the polls.
1 person likes this
@Annie2 (594)
• United States
12 Aug 08
Everyone has some very good points to ponder here. I don't really have any new points to add, except for a question. I am curious to know what Hillary Clinton's immediate response was. She fought so hard against Obama and lost, so it just makes me wonder. I would be interested to know. Has anyone heard or seen anything about her first response?
@speakeasy (4215)
• United States
12 Aug 08
Sorry, I have not seen any articles about Hilary's response to this situation. Of course, by now, it would no longer be her 1st response. But, perhaps, someone else has heard somthing and will post it here.