I caught the interview with Neil Cavuto. I appreciate and respect the way in which Ms. Albright responded to the insulting and disrespectful comments by Cavuto.
Her response was right on. I may not agree with everything she says, but her demeanor and explanation of her disagreement with Bush and his actions in creating this war were RIGHT ON.
Cavuto certinly showed that he was on the side of war. I resent his disrespect of Albright.

No one knows more than our host, but before he remarked, "The Bush Administration has not appointed any Democrats to the Cabinet, as far as I can tell," a a production assistant might have told him that Democrat Norman Mineta served as President George Bush's Secretary of Transportation from 2001 through July 6, 2006.

It may have been a minor post, ineffectual and no more than window dressing -- but it's false to assert so casually and offhandedly that no Democrat was appointed to the Cabinet by Bush.

PLEASE address the nexus between the writings of scholars and policymakers. In short, do their writings have ANY effect on decision-making? If so, can you cite examples?

Refreashing to hear Ms Albright's forthright presentation... should US policy on terrorism be a war or a international police action?

I just wanted to say that I LOVE this woman. I really respect her clear and understandable explanations of such complicated and multi-layered topics, such as politics. I'd vote for Madeleine Albright in a second, but in this election it's Obama all the way!

I highly doubt that any leader in the middle east could or would take Hilary seriously.

No excuses...the U.S. and the U.N. messed up concerning Rwanda

and again now concerning Darfur...

not being able to move the system fast enough???? Umm...the Darfur genocide has been going on for a couple of years now....

I think what the candidate is perceived to represent is very important. Obama is going to surround himself with people with "experience", so the experience issue is not #1 to me. We don't live in an autocracy...despite Bush's best efforts to make it so, therefore it's not all on the president him/herself..it is him/her and the people they choose.

So far, I think Obama is the best embodiment of the idea of "change" and that would really help our damaged reputation around the world and I think he can inspire "change"...I am dubious about Hillary's ability or even intent to do so.

Also, I was not disturbed by Obama's Pakistan comments...due to the soundbite quality of the mainstream media his statement is remembered out of it's context. It was not a Bush-esque statement at all.

I, too, think Hillary Clinton is the better candidate. A do-er, not just a talker. I think that the next President is going to have their hands full in trying to straighten out the messes that the Bush Administration has created. I find Obama inspirational, Edwards passionate and if Bill Richardson had a larger profile, I would vote for him. I am voting for Hillary because she has the leadership qualities that I admire.

I think Hillary Clinton is a strong leader who already has international respect. Obama is too naive about world affairs (i.e. his recent comments on Pakistan), and we already know where that leads (i.e. Bush).

I am tempted to vote for Obama because I think his expat upbringing and time spent among Muslims awards him extra credibility among non-US Muslims with whom the US might be wise to talk/negotiate, over various matters -- including current enemies of the US.

What do you think about this reading of Obama's background, Madam Albright?