Obama still seems strikingly naive on this subject, and Hillary (again) demonstrates her foreign-policy savvy.

A sit-down by Obama with anybody from Iran (sane or otherwise) would most surely lessen America's status (to say nothing of America's president's status) and elevate Iran's.

Now, that might be worthwhile if lasting peace in the Mid East were the outcome. But does anybody with the slightest smidgen of understanding of history really believe that a sit-down could accomplish that?

Typical Hillary wanting it both ways. She's the one who started out attacking Obama for what he said on the issue. When he turns it back around against her, she cries foul.

If Hillary loses there will be many reasons but one will be that she thumbed her nose at the those of us who see war as the last possible choice so she could frame herself as a tough, hawkish commander in chief.

I'm am thrilled to see these frames come back to bite her.

Can you all let me know if you're still having trouble logging in? We're trying to get rid of the last minute glitches.

Oh, the irony. In whining about him misstating her position, she misstates his position. He did not say he WOULD meet them. The question was: Would you be WILLING to meet with foreign leaders of hostile nations?

Hilarious and sad.

Hurricane, this is what came up in today's discussion on TV. When the Clintons mischaracterized Obama's quotes in 2004 about the war, we said so.

"The point they disagree on is whether the President himself (or herself) should commit to a face to face meeting in the first year with hostile foreign leaders. Obama said he would; Hillary said she wouldn't."

WRONG. The point they disagree on is whether they would be willing to meet with hostile foreign leaders.

Here is the quote from the debate transcript:

QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled 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?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/23/debate.transcript/index.html

Greg, if you are going to appoint yourself arbiter of the "plain facts," you have to be accurate.

"...five of the worst dictators, including Ahmadinejad from Iran..."

Dictator? The guy was elected president; and, as such, has very little authority under the Iranian system.

I can just see the Hillary team surveying the recent landscape --

'Hey Obama is gaining on us! What is he doing that's working? He called us out for mis-represnting his position! So lets call him out for mis-representing our position!'

So let me get this straight...

1) HRC complains that Obama is misstating her position on talking to foreign governments we disagree with.

2) HRC complains that Obama misstates her position as being likeGeorge W. Bush's position.

3) HRC then lays out her vision that we have low level contact with Iran and Syria, but not Presidential level engagement

4) Which is almost exactly the position of the George W. Bush administration.

Clintonian.

Yep bdn,
That's the gist of it.

And in the process, Hillary again misrepresented the question that was asked and Obama's position on it.

Hey, have you noticed that Hillary now has a "Vision", too? It's "the America I see" - really catchy, huh - and poll-tested, too. You wanted her to do the vision thing and now she has - she can do whatever you want, be whoever you want her to be. Hillary Clinton, the chameleon candidate. Experienced at it, too.

Let's see:

Find your "voice", then immediately let Bill speak for you: check.

Throw out stump speech, make cliff notes versions of Obama and Edwards' speeches, insert into internal hard drive without skipping a beat: check.

Make sure to lower voice to a gentle hush every 2 minutes in town hall style "Elizabeth Dole" moments: check.

Make list of Obama strengths (e.g. war vote, diplomacy) and attack HIM to mask your deficiencies: check.

Find an authentic person inside the shell that has become Hillary Rodham Clinton: still working on it--may take another 35 years.

I don't believe that Hillary can repair crumbling political support with this sort of parsing. It is simply too little, too late.

What puzzles me (or maybe not) is the time lag ... Obama's positions on meeting with world leaders and not mandating health care coverage were made clear fairly early on in the debates but it's only now, suddenly, they are front and foremost in her challenge to him. If they are that important now (to the point that anyone not insisting on a healh care mandate is somehow 'immoral'), then why weren't they immediately worthy of comment?

I can only assume that these are the current Big Issues because all other arguments against him or for herself have gone by the wayside: experience/inexperience, 'gravitas,' Obama as R Reagan fan, his supposed lack of support for pro-choice (the present votes), Soc Sec (which she sends mailers about but never talks about because she has no plan). And then there are her successive themes: experience -- change - gaining her voice - hearing your voice - vision. (Hmmm -- speaking in strange tounges, hearing voices, seeing into the future .... is there a pattern developing?)

I hope that if she is nominated that she has a more coherent and substantive campaign against the Republicans. And if she should be elected, I sure as hell hope she has a more coherent and substantive plan for governing!! Simply "beating the other guy" (which, in truth, she doesn't seem to have done too well) isn't really a goal that carries over into governance and leadership.

Hillary's position isn't the "Bush-Cheney policy," which until recently was opposition to any and all negotiation with those countries.

"until recently," meaning now bush-cheney have low-level contacts with these countries. like hillary would

Hillary's doing a good job distracting from the main point here. If you look at Hillary's immediate response after Obama answered that question and the spin subsequent to the debate, it's obvious what Obama's referring to when he brings this up on the campaign trail:

In a telephone interview today, the New York senator went further. Of Obama’s comment, she said: “I thought that was irresponsible and frankly naive.”

Her campaign later circulated a memo to reporters saying it was a “mistake” to commit to presidential-level meetings without precondition "with some of the world's worst dictators" and portrayed her remarks as showing her depth of experience.

Obama, in a separate interview with the Times, vigorously defended his comments.

“What she’s somehow maintaining is my statement could be construed as not having asked what the meeting was about. I didn’t say these guys were going to come over for a cup of coffee some afternoon,” he said.

He added Clinton is making a larger point.

“From what I heard, the point was, well, I wouldn’t do that because it might allow leaders like Hugo Chavez to score propaganda points,” he said. “I think that is absolutely wrong.”

He likened the position to a continuation of the Bush administration diplomatic policies. And he said what was “irresponsible and naive” was voting to authorize the Iraq War.

...

As it turns out, Obama's judgment on that question won the day and now Clinton's trying to co-opt his initial answer (ie willing to meet with anyone, but not just running about with dictators for the shit of it) that she called irresponsible and naive. Keep in mind that since that debate, Obama's put his answer into practice with constructive discussions with leaders on both sides in Kenya.

Why is this back in the news? It hurts Obama on his lack of international experience. He lost the debate on this point when if first came up. Clinton, instead, came across from this as experienced, savvy, and didn't back herself into a corner. Does Obama really want to focus on international experience? Heck, he's chair of a Senate subcommittee on Europe, but hasn't held much, if any meetings, hasn't been to Europe (except once reportedly to change planes at an airport), nor seems to show any interest in any of this. Look, being the anti-Bush and willing to talk is one thing, even if he went too far with his commitment or willingness, but it'd help he had some experience to back himself up. He's a lightweight on this and it seems stupid to keep pushing this argument that he lost the first time around, and he still loses on now.

Pdxmom, I just listened to her interview a few minutes ago, I think she was pretty clear and also cautioned that the information and question framed to her was very incomplete and misleading. If we were talking about someone other than Bill Clinton, I'd wonder, but, this is Bill Clinton we are talking about. People can say and claim a lot about Bill Clinton, but I'm guessing his AIDS interest is real and the uranium stuff is coincidental at best. I'm confident Bill will keep up with his activities and that Hillary will encourage and leverage this to help recover America's reputation that Bush has squandered. And, speaking of resources, we've got a lot of our own, including nuclear. If anything, we as a nation might be concerned with what happens with or where their's goes.

Obama better not agree to meet with them at the kitchen table, or the Hillary people will call him a Nazi.

Worst Dictators???? LOL!!!!
Iran's Ahmadinejad and Venezuala's Chaves were both ELECTED with larger margins that Bush II.

If you're concerned about "talking to Dictators" note that the US regularly talks to Pakistan's Mussharraf, a military dictator who came to power via a coup, and Egypt's "President" Mubarak, and the Saudi Royals, and Jordan's "King" etc. etc.

"Both Hillary and Obama agree on the question of whether the United States as a nation should negotiate with hostile foreign governments. The point they disagree on is whether the President himself (or herself) should commit to a face to face meeting in the first year with hostile foreign leaders. Obama said he would; Hillary said she wouldn't."

Greg, I agree that it's important to be precise here. So let's first understand that the way you're characterizing this is completely dishonest. Please find in the question or the answer the part where Obama commits to a PERSONAL meeting, will you please? And then post it here to support your nonsense.

Hillary's characterization is disingenuous and misleading and you are playing along. Obama said that he would be willing to meet with these people. And NO ONE said or implied that this would be a personal, face-to-face meeting except Hillary (and you). She's been trying to distort his answer since he gave it, and she continues to do so. And you are pretending to be far more naive than you are. Give it up, OK Greg?

joejoejoe:

Sadly, I think you may have nailed it. At least in the case of one particular fan of Chinese...

gzitver, however it is accomplished, to implement universal health care will require some form of mandatory action. What would you propose for those able to pay that refuse and would instead opt to leave the bill with the taxpayer? (a) let them die for lack of care or (b) force them to pay? While I think there is some justice in (a), I do not think at we can do this in a civilized society and it is likewise unfair to burden the taxpayer with these folks. We already have much of this with our auto insurance laws in many states that require you to either get your own insurance or to buy into a minimum state-sanctioned plan.

Obama's alternative of a voluntary program is simply more of what we have now, which doesn't work and leaves a lot of folks covered and costs of much of their treatment shifted to other patients and the government. I trust that Clinton will on compromise on the universal aspect of her plan and that she's learned enough from her first attempt at this and her successes with children's health care to be successful--especially as a president with a mandate to implement universal health care.

Dictators? Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chaves were both ELECTED to office with larger margins than Bush.

The "dictators" in the region tend to be US allies - Musharraf, the King of Jordan, the President of Life of Egypt, the Royals of Saudi Arabia --- the more repressive the regime, the more likely it is to be a US ally. We talk to dictators all the time.

My letter to earth-loving Democrats:

Well it’s almost time now. Here’s my quivering argument for whatever it counts.

Let’s first perspectify the Clinton legacy. Obama supporters are very tearful about Clinton’s affair with Lewinsky and his hurtful lying. There are politicians, you know, who are both, pristine in private life and make competent presidents. Let’s take a historical shot at this Audacity of Hope. JFK was a serial philanderer who poked every hole in sight. He gave us Bay of Piglets and near Apocalypto. Then, came LBJ who fatally perpetuated the Vietnam war. Nixon – you know what he was. Carter – I still ask God why someone so good-hearted must be so utterly incompetent. Reagan doubled the national debt, shamed us with Iran Contra and broke us with S&L crises. George Sr. – no, he was in bed only with the Saudis and very recession prone. Then, we had Bill Clinton. Be swayed not by the Republican propaganda, wipe away the scum thrown at your faces by them, and you will see quite easily, Bill Clinton gave us the best presidential years in recent history. Who compares? All recent presidents before him were either just as immoral or hugely incompetent and in many cases, both.

Let’s get to near history and Hillary’s vote for the Iraq war resolution. Our country had just been devastatingly attacked. Such was the patriotism fever that a Democratic Senator who left most of his body parts in the fields of Vietnam was knocked out of the senate for not being patriotic enough! 29 Democratic senators voted for the resolution. Many of these senators, including people like Kerry finally gave in because Bush persuaded them that the vote will be used primarily for getting Saddam Hussein to come clean. They might not have trusted him. Bush was going to war anyway. Only, we might have given Republicans a 60 vote senate. Friends, Hillary Haters, Monday Morning Quarterbacks, Backseat Drivers, what would have happened then?
Meanwhile, on a hilltop, far, far away from the battlefield, there was a Senator in the safe confines of Bluest of Blue states, his state not devastated like New York. Sears Tower still towering. He made a fine anti-war speech – it was lovely. Simultaneously, he was lustily voting Present in his state legislature instead of taking a stand on certain radioactive issues to avoid providing propaganda material to the Republicans. There is a phrase for this: political expediency. Clinton haters are aware of it. If Obama had to be politically expedient in the Bluest of Blue states, what, you must think, he would have done in the jingoistic pressure cooker, the senate of 2002/03 was? When we did not know where and when again we might be hit again. One anti-war commentary given from the distant, safe, liberal confines of Illinois should not a president make!
Predictably, once Obama joined the Senate, his voting was similar to “balanced” democrats like Clinton. He raised no hell, made no great speeches, showed no leadership. Why should he? You see, voting against funding is a somewhat unpopular thing. You can’t do that and hope to become President. And you can’t just say Present, you know. You have to vote.

So now we have a tight race. Hillary might very well lose. No doubt, the Hillary supporters will have to show up.

Obama supporters also feel about his electability. Good night, good luck and sweet dreams. We wouldn’t let Hillary lay a hand on Obama. No, we must be all tea and coffee only. If you criticize – you are racist. Dearest, I am going to go out a very dangerous limb here. I have a feeling, Republicans won’t be so sensitive. No, I think they will have a thing or two to say about that. *Despite* all the hype, Obama is not seeming to be doing dramatically better than Hillary against McCain. How will it look after Republicans have given him a work over? To those who must believe that our gem, Obama is still somewhat unknown – he has spent over $100 million dollar introducing himself to voters. Media and many of you have been all ga-ga about him. Can it really get better for him? You know, Fox and Wall Street Journal, i.e., conservative media won’t keep giving him a pass. They won’t be so sensitive about asking him about his drug use. Pox on them but they will – and much more. Though, in my personal opinion they ought not to bother with that. McCain’s strong, maverick, character and years of experience will be quite enough. To a left of center and right of MoveOn org type of a person like me, when I put Obama next to McCain, I see a shrub next to a Titan.

All this doesn’t even get into what Obama has done aside from making inspirational speeches (including an anti-war one). He has organized in Chicago – shame on me if I deny him that. For a nomination that might work, comrades. In a general election that only works if the public has a seizure while rolling on the floor in laughter. Bird flu, global warming have nothing on the effect Obama’s record-setting lack of experience might have on the general population.

It’s something to think about. If you believe I am one of those purple Democrats, you are being unfair to yourself. I thought Howard Dean was a better candidate than Al Gore and John Kerry. I was devastated when he was knocked out in the primaries because he dared to be emotional and spontaneous. The media usually likes that sort of thing until it happens. He had such a strong executive experience. But the media didn’t like his laughter. He didn’t have a pretty wife and he didn’t make nice speeches. And in America we must have Style.

I doubt if an undecided voter takes the trouble to log onto this site and sift through all the comments. I have a feeling they don’t. And I don’t have the Audacity of Hope to believe I can make any impression on those who love Obama. But try I must.

Yes We Can Vote Substance Over Shine And Style!
Yes We Can!
Yes We Can!

Greg Sergent is hardly an objective journalist. Although he has tried, on average his reporting is distorted and heavily Clinton leaning.

Just for the record. Hillary's methods of diplomacy have been called Bush-Cheney LITE. There is a distinction. Bush-Cheney would not meet. Hillary would not meet as well, opting to send lower minions first, thus Bush-Cheney LITE.

Quite honestly, I think Bush-Cheney lite is a fair comparison.