Clinton calling Obama naive and irresponsible is an indicator of her character and personhood. It's dumb politics to be reminding folks about why 52% don't like her. Obama is hitting her back with real examples of her irresponsibility on Iraq position. Voters dislike petty squabbles & name calling. It also does not look Presidential. Hillary lost this round.

After reading the transcript of the question and responses by both candidates, I have affirmed my support of Senator Obama and maintain my respect for Senator Clinton. Although I can empathize with Hillary's caution, Barack's response articulated a clear departure of the non-engagement foreign policy approach propagated in the post-cold war era. We need a wholesale paradigm shift in our foreign policy and Barack's point of view represents the change we so desperately need at home and abroad.

This is a perfect example of how much more experience Clinton has over Obama. He will make an excellent president someday… however; we need someone who has the experience to kick some butts. Clinton has been in the White House… for 8 years might I mention, and she knows how it works. What this country needs now is someone like her to pull all the loose ends together!

The question was, Would you be "willing" to meet. To insinuate this would be done without proper evaluation of the circumstances and agenda is another of Hillary's attempts to duck the issue and besmirch the opposition.

Obama said he would meet with the "bad" leaders. To insinuate that he would meet right after he assumes the presidency is a bogus statement. Experience? Why did Clinton vote for the war? Isn't she so experienced? If she really had the experience she claims to have, she would not have done that! I am sure that Clinton, if elected, would keep the same politics of arrogance that we can see in the current White House. Maybe a little masked… but the same!Clinton is feeling the heat, thats why she will try to attack Obama as much as she can.
Wake up America!

I think CNN should look at the responses in this blog! The people think differently then what there trying to spin against Obama. The media is also in on whatever agenda the Clintons have on Americans. I respect Obama even more, and am suprised at how CNN continues to disapoint! Stop covering the game onesided, Obama is showing that he will stand toe to toe with anyone. And the people are noticing that he is infact strong and can lead. Heck why dont CNN talk about Obama's response to all this…He said "being naive and irresponsible is by voting for a war without a plan to get out" that speaks louder then some answer to a debating question. She was underpressure with a vote and got it wrong. She refused to read anything about the plans to attack Iraq. She just said ok go ahead lets do it! Hmmm that doesnt sound like a leader to me.

As of the last entry on 7/25 at 5:22 pm:

Number supporting Obama/think Clinton is cheap politics as usual:
157

Number supporting Clinton/Think Obama is too inexperienced:
31

Seemingly undecided:
roughly 37

A few entries werent included since they were confusing but overall it seems like if the sample here reflects the voting poputation then Obama will do it. His supporters just need to go to the polls.

I can see how Mrs. Clinton percieved it as being overzealous on Mr. Obama's part but i wonder if she was saying that for the audience or from her own convictions?

Obama's response to the question was good. Why is Hillary and her ilks trying to make an issue out of nothing? She called Obama " Niave, but her vote on the war was niave and she refuses to explain her vote. She's is clearly taking a page from the Bush handbook, which is become an isolationist and alienate America from those whom we disagree. Sen.Clinton will NOT get my vote, I'd vote for Guilani before i vote her.

Clinton isn't "nuanced" to prefer careful prenups before meeting with baddies lest she be "deceived". In her case its really required. She's reminding us of her 2003 war vote that was not a mistake because she was "misled". Really? By anybody smart? All of the baddies and some of the goodies are more than capable of deceit. Presidents are admired for audacity, (more so when their gamble just appears to be daring or risky.) Obama understands that.

I am so glad that Senator Obama's lack of substance is beginning to shine through. His answer on Monday night proves he is not ready to lead this country.

He should consider 2016. I really think he is the future of the Democratic party, but he should not have let the Oprah hype push him into running for President. Serve another term or two in the Senate or take a postion in the Clinton cabinet, then run as a qualified candidate.

Clinton answered the question like a Real President. Which is the PROBLEM, I like Obama's fresh approach. I don't want a seasoned politician who will give us more of the same. Clinton represents all that is wrong with politics.

And then Clinton was all, "Obama's naivete and inexperience = unpresidentialness, a word I just made up", and then Obama was like, "Washington needs to change! Only I can change Washington with my magical change-wand, and my band of change wizards! Join me!" And then Clinton was like, "Somebody ask me a question about my husband so I can make a witty joke and look inevitable!", and then Anderson Cooper was all, "Bill Richardson, you have 2.5 seconds to respond. Time's up."

Obama answered the question right. We need to set a good example to show to the world, American are more than just ordinary people, we are making efforts to unite the world. So the world could look up to us and follow us.

I notice that an objective of both campaigns has been successful in this piddling little story. It sucked up the oxygen that other candidates are dying for. While I prefer Gravel of the pack, I cannot vote for any of them due to their immigrations positions. A note to remember, it is not a game to pick the eventual winner to support, but to pick the one that is best in line with your views. Any of them would be 100% better than poor worthless W, but then that applies to my cat too. And at this stage 100% is not enough. As for Castro, I see no difference trading with the Communist dictators in China from doing the same for Castro. Both are wrong.

Clinton and Obama gave the same answer. Clinton is trying to somehow make a political point, but it doesn't hold up. Maybe Clinton supporters will be comforted by it. As an independent voter, I didn't see a difference. Obama because he seems more open and straightforward and I can actually find out what his views are. I compared the Clinton and Obama issues pages on their campaign web sites. Obama's has more information about his views. Overall I think Clinton and Obama have the same policy goals on almost all issues. They would make an extraordinary ticket together. At the moment, I would prefer Obama to Clinton as the presidential candidate.

Don't talk to dictators? Half our allies are dictators. You talk to everyone, especially those who disagree with you. Hillary, I was warming to you, but this response just reminded me why you arent the best choice.

For those people that say Hillary is ready to be the next President are people that have been brainwashed by old politics. It's simple: If you want the same old "Presidential" type elected, then vote Hillary. Just look as Bush back in 2000. Most people thought he was "Presidential" and you see where that got us. America needs a new leader that will change old politics. People need to stop being scared of new ideas for leading this country. Obama is the man. Hillary is just mad that Obama would gain more acceptance and RESPECT from world leaders than she could ever dream of.

Hillary is the Queen-B of backhanded smear tactics. She's trying to brainwash the country into forgetting Obama. She's getting dangerously close to using Bush's tactics to void McCain from the race. Stories like this should not be voiced publicly…but privately between camps.

Obama wants to try and smooth over relations and sooth global tensions. Sure, maybe Clinton worded her answer better, but Obama has some guts to say that he'd try to work with them.

All these people are ready for "change" that they are willing to run towards anything that SEEMS new. Obama is that, but do we really want a freshman senator running the White House?

We need someone with more experience that won't commit silly gaffes that can cost us dearly. Obama answered the question carelessly because he knows that is what the American people wanted to hear. He didn't answer the question thoughtfully as we should be expect him to do.

Amazing to read how many here were responding with the "business as usual" mindset. Clinton's response was more much more in the light of politically proper but not within the idea of changing attitudes not just in America but world wide. Envoys or other irrelevant meetings mean nothing and only give the excuse to withdraw. Why do you think it took so long for N. Korea and they are still able to use effective dodges to accuse America of planning war.If you want change, it's time that Americans stop thinking in terms of politics but rather the what will make impressions for real change. It's no longer the time to be scurrrred of change…

Hillary needed to listen to the questing better. It didn't ask if they would commit to unconditionally meeting with those leaders, but if they would be WILLING to meet with them. IT goes without saying that the intentions for the meeting (as well as many other factors) would play into the decision. Also, the question doesn't say that those meetings have to be photo ops. They could be privately handled. Presidents have many discussions with other world leaders over phone and video conferences.

As for loosing hispanic votes in Florida. Those people are wrong. You don't have to agree with the politics of Castro (or any of the others) to talk with them. In fact, it is essential that we talk to our enemies. Not talking leads to misunderstandings and war. Talking to the enemy does not mean you condone or lend credence to what they do or say.

I'm an immigrant living in the USA. OBAMA was right on the point. America is the pride of the world but this good reputation has been damaged by the BUSH administration. It is time for America to start engaging the world and show her beautiful face that she was once known for. The world is once more eagerly waiting for America to lead not intimidate. A new kind of diplomacy is the way to future.

There is a significance to this response… It shows the difference in the experience between the senators. It shows that Sen. Clinton is aware of the operations of Foreign Policy & dipolomacy, where Sen. Obama is still learning how these things truly work. I think the intentions are good, but the process is much more important.

I completely agree with Marsha from Portland. Hillary did not say she would not talk to "bad people" back in April. She intelligently is saying that she would come up with a plan of action prior to meeting with other leaders. Obama clearly needs more political experience. This is proven by his response to immediately start meeting with leaders without a strategic plan.

It is naive to think that the strategically detailed question directed to Obama was not a setup and that Clinton had not rehearsed her answer. Obama is right that Clinton demonstrates politics as usual rather than change with this "nice fabricated controversy".

JFK said, "let us never negotiate out of fear, BUT let us never fear to negotiate". I liked Obama's answer best. We've had enough "aloof diplopmacy" with Bush. During the Cuban Missle Crisis, JFK and RKF were talking to every Russian they could through every means possible, and war was averted. When you treat world leaders (good or bad) like crap, you get crap. When you approach them as an equal ala JFK's UN speech "… we all breathe the same air … cherish our children's future… etc." you bring them away from their childish banter and get adult-like behavior.

"Chavez was democratically elected and poses no threat."

I cannot believe someone seriously posted that.

The debate highlights my main concern about the democratic candidates. Barack Obama is highly inexperienced and it shows. He thinks that he will be able to build a JFK-like cult of personality and sweep his way into office. Sadly, he has no real legislative accomplishments to show. Hilary is a coldly calculating sociopath who has unfavorables that are through the roof. Edwards is a trail lawyer with $400 haircuts living in a mega-mansion paid for by the monetary damages he won in lawsuits. I am not impressed.

Obama is far too arrogant. People like Iran's Ahmadinejad will only see that as a weakness - young pup only too eager to prove himself. A sly eagle hides its claws, surveys the situation and its prey before making the first move. Furthermore, Obama has no track record, no experience in situations even remotely similar to this one to predict how those Ahmadinejad will react.

Clinton, on the other hand, knows what she's doing. She knows that the playing ground isn't leveled, and she'll only make her move once she's assessed the situation and all possible moves.

Obama is much like the University of Chicago, where he taught. I know because I'm an alumnus. Much too eager to prove himself. Sir, much like all the other alumni, including myself, you may be intelligent, but you're far too green, and woe to any of us who puts your pride before our welfare.

I don't think there is any contradiction whatsoever between the stance Hillary took in the debate and the stance she allegedly took when she said that it's a mistake for the president to say he will not speak to bad people. Hillary in no way asserted any promise in either statement to demonstrate the type of overoptimistic diplomacy that Obama wishes to practice.

Hillary's Camp stupidly decided to take a Bush-Rove style of politics. There was a high positive response by regular voters for Obama's statement during the debate, and Hillary looked the way she always does: calculating and non-committal. Her answer lost her points. So in true REPUBLICAN style… she argued her bad answer into a supposed strength and brought out her husband's lackeys to back her up, even though she had attacked the President on the course of action that she is now proposing. Why can't she just admit she made a mistake in that comment of the debate! Because she never admits to her political mistakes… who does that sound like?

I Greatly agree with Obama, I think that we can solve most of the world's problems through a process of dialogue and respect.

Hillary however is not standing for anything, she is too busy trying to please the minority view to be elected than to follow principles.

Before she wanted the war, now she is against it. Before she criticized bush for not having an open dialogue with others now she is criticizing Obama for saying we should have a dialogue with others.

In response to Cuban comment concerning Castro:

To all the cuban hypocrites to whom America gives a green card to, what has America's policy towards Cuba has change for the suffering poor Cubans…absolutely nothing, other than poor cubans suffering from lack of economic opportunities.

Really people we are better off with stability in the world than with Chaos…and Obama is proposing that, a chance for stability, prosperity, and peace at home and around the world.

Obama is right on with his answer. If we just talked to people around the globe and listened to their concerns, we might be able to save face and regain our greatness in the world. Diplomacy is the only way to stop the growing hatred of the US of A.

Obama is completely correct. It is time for a real change in thinking. Hillary will be just more of the same policy. She has made that clear.
Did anyone else notice that she had made a real attempt -maybe with Botox–to keep her brow completely without a wrinkle. Allas—Not a worry at all with any question!!!

This is the part I hate the most about Political race, It is dirty for the most part.. the "He said, She said"!!.. This is where I separate the good from the bad. If you're bad enough to bad mouth and even lie about yourself and your counter parts, You are bad enough to be my president. I would much rather see a president who can portray and stand by us Americans with a clear, concious, humble yet firm stance for the sake of our peace and that of the world than someone who is already unwilling to commit from the get go. The world needs peace!! So far, Obama has my vote.

I really believe that Senator Barack Obama answered the question very well. It is always a great idea to meet with the other side to see if both sides can come to an agreement. Whose to say that if the we would have tried to compromise with the other side that we probably would not be deep into the situation that we are in. "Oh how good and pleasent it is for us to dwell together in unity and harmony and love."

There is a difference between agreeing in concept and committing to an actual meeting under any circumstances. Obama answered the question straightforwardly, indicating he was willing to talk. There was no actual difference in the answers of Obama, Clinton, and Edwards as any of the three would obviously do the background work before any meeting would occur.

It's time for the US to work towards a sensible policy towards Cuba, rather than one driven by a small radical faction within the Cuban-American community.

He was asked if he was WILLING to meet. Obama said nothing about promising to meet as Clinton's people spun it to be. I think that was the right answer. Saying he is not willing to consider it would be worse than simply saying no. Read the question and then his answer. Don't read what Clinton's people say what was implied. This is plain and simple: something being made out of nothing to try and help Clinton and harm Obama.

THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR THE EXTREMELY INTERESTING YOU/TUBE.
YOUR SELECTION OF PERSONS WITH QUESTIONS WAS FAR ABOVE OTHER POLITICAL SHOWS. I FEEL SENATOR OBAMA WAS THE MOST BRILLANT AND BRIGHTEST STAR. ANITA-LARGO

If you re-read the question as it's quoted, both answers are really the SAME.. "yes". Hillary tried to make a distinction by tacking a more specific time frame onto her answer. It's not as if the question asked for an exact time frame and Obama responded he would get on a plane to Havana the minute after he was sworn in, he just gave a straight, simple answer and his logic behind it. Maybe if Hillary had answered first and included those details, he would have as well… but that wasn't part of the question they were asked.

I think Hillary's answer really demonstrates that her "experience" translates into the same tired ideas on more than we know.

Would someone please tell me what "presidential" means? This term was tossed around so loosely and smugly by Bush and his cohorts in the last campaign that I have to wonder whether presidential means clueless.

I totally agree with Obama. This whole business of not speaking to other political leaders is childish and, frankly, dangerous. We should keep an open dialogue with all nations, simply because that’s what a world leader should do. The contents of that dialogue may vary, depending on the nation, but open lines of communication is very important, as Obama pointed out. Clinton, on the other hand, will say whatever her advisors tell her is popular at that particular point in time.

When did one person's opinion become right and another's become wrong. If that is what Obama would do should he be elected President, is up to him to do and for the rest of us to debate.

Sen. Clinton's answer is just like the President of USA, her answer is perfect as President in this situation. Obama's answer showed inexperienced Young Senator's foriegn policy. There's nothing to argue with Hillary's answer because she knows what is the best for our country, but Obama is anxious to be the president so answered quick without policital knowledge, it doesn't mean he is stupid, it came from inexperience. Obama realized his answer wasn't smarter than Hillary, he turn around attack Hillary, cause the trouble and tried to make Hillary look bad, but it will never work out because water always flows downward. So he couldn't answer like Hillary, after the Debate his Senior Advisors coached him to attack Hillary. My point is Hillary can controll the hard situation by her own brain but Obama couldn't do by himself yet, he always needs other Campaign Staff's advises, that's why it is dangerous to hand the power to Obama yet. Obama has the future if he is really smart like he said, why worry about this election so much, he is not 70 years old now, he can prove himself eventually. Obama is making huge mistake with attacking Hillary as long as he is staying with Democrats. I am afraid of Obama may hire staffs like VP because he performed several dirty and nasty mistakes by his staffs so far, it isn't his idea I guess, then he didn't keep his word like new and fresh, that kind of performances are old political style, doesn't match with his slogan. Obama should be RESPONSIBL for his words first before attack other candidates. American people need to watch out and wake up, your one vote is very important for our Country's future.
Obama, do FAIR PLAY, otherwise hurts yourself deeply.

I think the diplomacy and responses here allude more to what the problems are with our Nation than a solution to those problems. The question asked if they would be "willing" to meet with those leaders. The question does not ask if the meeting would be done on a conditional basis. It was poised to present a contrast or similarity to the current party's stance. That was its intent, pure and simple, and I think both candidates let us know where they stand on the issue. To think that there would be any meeting that would take place without conditions or objectives is simply absurd.

The truth of the matter is that Hillary answered just like a politician. Obama answered in the way that the American people would like to see. We are tired of this administrations policies. We don't need an envoy of diplomats talking we need the heads of states talking. Like Reagan did with the Soviet Union. We need results not retoric.

Hillary flip-flopped; she said exactly what Obama said, back in April. http://wcbstv.com/us/local_story_112220939.html
We have a real choice: choose someone like Barack Obama who won't say anything just to get votes then change a few months later.

So um… the questions was "would be willing to meet 'with leaders of Syria, Iran, Venezuela during their first term.”

being willing to meet with the leaders of these countries is not committing to meeting with these leaders. Hillary is clearly spinning things to get people to think Obama's answer is any different from hers… only it was the same thing, save that Obama sounds committed to doing something about it for certain, and Hillary is only willing to do it if it doesn't make her look bad.

I don't know about you guys, but I want a president thats worried about what the US and the world thinks about America, not what folks think about them as a President.

I hate to say it, but Clinton really isn't splitting hairs. There has to be protocol to meetings at the Presidential level or you lose credibility. I agree that our openness to diplomatic relations with specific countries should be re-assessed, but the level at which it is done makes a huge difference for relations with not only the country in question, but with all other countries involved. I agree with Rada - Clinton's answer was much more presidential and experienced (sorry Obama!)

Oh yeah, Obama should be really concerned about the Cuban vote, an exceedingly small bloc in a tiny geographical area in the state that handed our country over to the Bush regime for eight years. Goodness. I'm sure Rada wants to know how Obama would handle Elian Gonzalez.

Btw, Hispanics haven't cornered the market on dislike of Chavez or Castro. Get a clue.

Am I the only one who thinks that this question shows why Obama and Clinton should combine forces? If they are each willing to put aside their egos it would be such a good combo. He is young and can wait eight years for his chance to be president. He brings a lot of youth and enthusiasm to the job (granted he can be a little 'naive'). People actually like him so he can bring the likability factor back to the office.

On the other hand she is more experinced and can rein him in to give a more balanced perspective. And let's face it she is old so it is best if she gets first dibs at the office

Although both answers was good,Clinton answer was a bit better, this is why Obama will make a great Vice President under President Clinton!

Who screwed up; CNN or the Hillary Campaign?

The article says the question to Sen. Obama was "first term." The article then says that the Clinton memo says "first year."

If this is an error by the Clinton Campaign, and they don't issue a correction, it's enough to make me strongly consider NOT voting for Sen. Clinton. It would amount to an attempt to deceive voters (if intentional and CNN didn't err).

If this is an error by CNN, it should correct it because it's enough of an error to change my voting behavior.

Where is the harm in talking? I can sit at a table and say no. I can sit at a table, disagree, and offer up an alternative. If I sit and talk long enough, and nothing gets done, THEN and only THEN do I consider other alternatives. George's approach just reflects his inflated sense of self. the rest of the world sees a pathetic, uneducated, mentally challnged, redneck bully.

I beleive it was H.G. Wells that said the first man that raises his fist has just demonstrated he is out of ideas…may be wrong on that quote.

Obama is right on. Finally someone willing to come out of their "ivory tower" and discuss diplomacy, rather than sit back and produce idle threats to get what they want. Watch out for Hillary. She is as status quo as it can get.

Senator Clinton … understands that it is a mistake to commit the power and prestige of America’s presidency … by making such a blanket commitment,” the memo added.

I voted for her husband… but this sounds like something a republican would say. Especially that "power and prestige of American's presidency" part.

Once again, the Clinton News Network writes a story knocking anyone who challanges a Clinton. We know you all at CNN love the Clinton clan, but could CNN at least try to balance your unabashed Hillary cheerleading?

Whatever happened to getting out our troops as soon as possible?

I prefer Obama's idea of diplomocy. Talk is cheaper then war. In my 51 years of living, I still have not heard of anyone dieing while trying to resolve a problem by talking. I prefer that approach to 'He will not be named's Evil Axis.

I thought Hillary Clinton stole the show she was on point and her answers were what they are supoosed to be to the point. I think weather Americans want to believe it or not you are looking at your new President. She seems to have a better handle on the issues and is well schooled in the way of politics and how government works she will be the touch of class your laking White House needs and a good voice of reason and she won't do anything to endanger the American people.I think she means what she says. Thanks for your time

Hillary Clinton is the most deceitful and manipulative politician I have ever witnessed.

I guess that explains the 1.4 (on 4.0 scale) rating she received from Reader's Digest's "grade the candidate" on INTEGRITY (from 8 experts).

Hillary scored the lowest on INTEGRITY - lower than all the men graded (Guiliani, Romney, McCain, Edwards and Obama).

She is not trustworthy. And here we go again with another one of Hillary's manufactured disputes.

In April 2007 Hillary said, "I think it is a terrible mistake for our president to say he will not talk with bad people."

Now she wants to split hairs about how and when that's done? Hillary has taken that debate question (which she didn't answer correctly) and is trying to turn it into a controversy. The question wasn't how and when would you meet with…..it was would you meet in your first year. A year is 365 days. Is Hillary saying she would put this off for 2+ years? What would she be doing if not taking care of these type issues — polishing her nails?

Hillary is the only person dumb enough to think that those dictators would be invited over for a morning cup of tea. Just like she was dumb enough to allow the president to 'mislead her by the nose into voting for the Iraq war.' By her own admission she was "dumb and stupid."

Are we really interested in listening to the rants of a woman who admits to being so easily misled?

I'm sick to death of the media giving Hillary so much credit for being so smart when she clearly hasn't given any proof she deserves their praise, their protection and their defense of her every stupid argument or made up dispute.

I hope Hillary understands she not just attacking Obama. She attacking a lot of us who are determined to fight as hard as we can to make sure she's not our nominee.

I know she said she likes to "deck" her opponents so we're all on the lookout for the next punch she throws.

Hillary is ready to be our next President. The more I read about Senator Obama the more concerned I become. He's articulate, and a wonderful speaker but when you need help, his office says No. When you call Hillary's office, it's how can we help? Hillary is for all the people, regardless of income, religion, color, etc. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a President we can be proud of once again that will lead our country back on the right road. Senator Obama does not have the experience yet.

I think as more time goes by we will see the clear difference between these two. Senator Obama needs a few more years of experience under his belt before running for the highest political office in our land. Hillary is ready for the job now!

Hillary is trying to borrow from Carl Rove's diplomacy in her desperate effort to repossess the whitehouse.Clinton is using his poor wife to cling to power and kill democracy!!.America must protect its democracy from these traitors.They can go and succeed Fidel Castro,they don't mind life-time presidents there in Cuba.But here,8 years was more than these liers deserved!!

We need a change from the same old politic's that get us nowhere. And Clinton answer is 40 years old, which has not move us forward at all. Clinton blew the answer!

I love CNN, and I'm a democrat, but if this was a republican candidate it would be off the main page already.

It seems as though Hillary is finally showing that she possesses the wisdom and experience needed for this position. She is offering realistic, well-planned solutions for abstract/hypothetical scenarios instead of appeasing a viewing audience with lip service. As someone who formerly disliked her, she is slowly proving herself and winning me over. I was very impressed.

Senator Obama is absolutely right, and Senator Clinton is being ridiculous. The best way to size up anyone, world leader or not, is in a face-to-face meeting, and the best way to relieve tension between parties is to meet and chat. These are fundamental human facts. Obama's position shows strenght and confidence in himslef and America, while Clinton signals weakness and arrogance - he is unafraid to meet with even the most hostile of individuals. The critical point is the signal that would be sent by those leaders (say Chavez) to their supporters when they agree to meet with Obama - "how can America be out enemy if you meet with their President to talk about issues?"

This statement and action by Clinton is a clear indication thaty she will perpetuate America's problems and that she is out-of-tocuh with the real world.

Do you really think a Democrat has a shot at capturing the Cuban vote in South Florida anyway? Are you aware of that voting bloc's record in the last several cycles? Solidly Republican. I wouldn't look for the trend to change in '08.

The fact that Obama is willing and wants to try to make headway with these countries is a step in the right direction. Everyone knows that once someone takes office they are limited to what they can do but at least he has an open mind and is willing to try.

Hi, I'm a Brit who read the transcript of the debate on the CNN website yesterday and was utterly shocked at what Barack Obama said. The Clinton camp is correct - Senator Obama DID commit to "presidential-level meetings with some of the world's worst dictators without precondition during his first year in office."
The response from the Obama camp was transparently substance-less, and merely demonstrated a sense of panic, however minor, in the Obama camp over what is rightfully perceived as an enormous foreign policy gaffe.
On this particular issue, Clinton exuded experience and wisdom, while to be frank Obama just oozed naivety, inexperience and a determination to play up to a populist backlash against the foreign policy approach of President Bush.
As a Brit, I would much rather see America's next President continue to play tough with the world's worst dictators, and as I hope my new Prime Minister will do. The thought of the US President just jumping onto the sofa for chats with Kim Jong Il, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez (perhaps at Camp David by the fire?) fills me and countless Brits and probably continental Europeans as well with utter horror. It caused enough controversy over here in the UK when the Mayor of London cosied up to Hugo Chavez, so God only knows what would happen if the Prime Minister were to do it.

Although I'm undecided as to who I would rather see as Democratic Presidential Candidate (let alone US President), I would urge Americans to watch the younger faces like Barack Obama very carefully.
As someone who lives in a country where the Opposition plumped for the younger, fresher candidate who is now approaching being a liability for his Party, I can only urge Democrats to be extremely careful. Sometimes, if not usually, a bit of political baggage when combined with experience is better than just "a new face."

I'm not biased. I'm not prejudiced. But, as someone who takes his politics very seriously, I don't think the World's most powerful person should have got to where he OR she has got through populist rhetoric, empty gestures, spin and inexperience.

Here's to a fascinating and satisfying Presidential Election next year…

Best of Luck, America.

I see what Obama was driving at - Always keep channels of communication open even during times of disagreement or conflict.
For decades we kept lines of communication open with the Soviet Union which lead eventually to many important treaties that finally lead to Detante.
Barak Obama is a world class thinker
and the only propaganda that would be generated is that the United States
is a force for peace in the world and to snub U.S. diplomacy would show up the 'Bad Guys' to there own people - a reverse propaganda coup for U.S. prestige in the world. I am
refreshed by Obamas clear thinking and
ability to think out of the box. Take a look at the state of affairs in the world - if you want more of the same keep doing the same old thing. I for one relish creative diplomacy - it befuddles your opponent.

Marsha, Portland, OR … Why should you wait a year when time is of the essence here - our soldiers are dying in Iraq, development of nukes are at stake, etc?

GREAT answer Obama.

It's Hillary who blew it. If she didn't spend her time supporting B.S. Right wing wedge issues like flag-burning amendments she might have understood that.

This is a conservative attack tactic which will backfire on Hillary Clinton.

In response to Rada from Miami. The Cuban vote in South Florida has been MANIPULATED by the Republican party so well that it's unlikely that Clinton or Obama would get their votes anyway.

On the other hand, I think the Clinton camp is being petty and I believe this is exactly the type of politics that Democratic primary voters DO NOT want to hear from her or any of the candidates. Her stooping this low reminds me of something a Republican would do…somebody like Mitt Romney.

Obama answered like an open minded intellectual. Clinton started out with the standard politician approach (in plain English: “let’s continue to accomplish nothing”), and then changed it to a warmonger stance by specifically calling them all “bad”. Those answers boiled down to one open door, and one door locked with an insulting note on it for good measure. Bad or not, they are national leaders and unless we intend to bomb their civilian populations into oblivion, we would do well to keep our communications with them VERY active, and preferably somewhat friendly whenever remotely possible.

Part of the question was also "without precondition." How could Barack Obama say "yes," that he would meet with these leaders without precondition? This is absolutely ridiculous. His answer highlighted Obama's political inexperience, and Hillary Clinton's vast knowledge regarding world issues.

The question was simply: would you be "willing" to meet? The answer from Obama was "yes", as in yes I would be willing. He did not answer "yes and I guarantee it", he did not answer "yes and without careful forethought and consideration". Clinton's follow was better because it added context, however, I see no big contrast with her answer and Obama's answer, only opportunistic spin by the Clinton camp.

If Clinton is trying to make political hay of this difference, BTW, her answer was typically guarded & equivocal compared to Obama's direct reply, then her campaign is weaker that she is willing to admit. And, I wonder how she rationalises that it is "not presidential" to give the likes of rogues in Syria, et al. an opportunity to make propaganda use of a pre-emptive summit, yet she finds it perfectly acceptable to give al Quaeda in Iraq a pre-emptive surrender plan by demanding that the American(and coalition) armed forces publish a withdrawal plan while they(we) are engaged in a strategic combat effort, that, BTW, seems to be working!

proves that clinton is just another reactionary;

viva chavez libertad o muerte

I can't believe how silly (and even stupid) the Clinton campaign could be on this issue. It doesn't take more than average intelligence to know that Obama wouldn't meet these so-called dictators without initial ministerial level meetings. This was a classic Clintonian strategy to dampen the momentum gained by Obama after winning the Yutube/CNN debate.

Obama represents the so called New World Order that does away with politics of division. The reason why people can't stand America is because of its divisive attitude in the world. The Bush mantra of you are either with us or against has done more harm than good to world peace. America needs a president who is ready to bring down this fences that have been there for ages. I am a young man and I feel it is about time world leaders sat down and sorted out the mess we are in. Clinton's attitude of envoy is a continuation of what Bush does. We are looking for an American president who is more open minded and ready to try new things, furthermore Ronald Reegan did sit down with the leader of the then Soviet Union and see what that achieved. The world today is yearning for an American President with a different approach and Obama offers the world HOPE.

I thought Hillary's answer was more politically savvy than Barack's but her day-after claim that his response was a reckless, naive, gaffe is a nasty reminder that politics is a blood sport.

In Washington, they say, if you want a friend, get a dog. I'd like to see Barack shove back with equal spin. I'd defend the point by saying Hillary's response was too Bush-like. The American people have already had six years of a White House that thinks its best option is to stop talking to countries it doesn't like.

Clinton,as she did on the Iraq war, has flip-flopped again. She had berated Bush for failing to engage in direct talks with the "bad guys." It is time, at last, for some bold new initiatives. Obama will have the wisdom,judgment and skilled advisers to take these initiatives prudently. As Senator Obama says, he is not just going to invite these guys over for coffee.

My main concern with all of the candidates is their need to give exact dates for a pullout from Iraq. I wouldn't send a memo telling the neighborhood crackhead the dates I will be on vacation,doesnt it seem a little reckless to give our enemies anymore amunition against us? Another concern is how often they say "I" in all the responses. I wonder if they have even considered the feelings and thoughts of the servicemen and women that are fighting for us.With all the mudslinging and ill will these candidates are spewing about this war and the current administration, I believe it only serves to disrespect our military and poison the morale.While the war in Iraq is a huge topic,there are other topics on which they could better use their energy.

What an important distinction for Mrs. Clinton to be making such a priotity to highlight. She must be "working hard." I bet "it's hard work!"

Maybe she wants us to think to ourselves:
"Geeze, I wouldn't even have caught the distinction. That's something a leader would worry about! She sounds like a good leader!"

Nice job extending Obama's words beyond their intention Hilary. I'm sure he's a man of his word before a man of reason and would share a cup of tea with Hitler if given the oppurtunity following his election. NOT.

Not that I think hearing someone out can ever be a bad thing provided you have the time and they haven't abused the oppurtunity in the past. "Refusal to dignify" is camp posturing and never helps anything. It's throwing away an oppurtunity to be a good leader and present mutual commonground and build from it towards a win win solution.

I think this highlights Hilary's personality more than anything. She "refused to take anything off the table" and then jumped on someone for being willing to commit to something.

Doesn't matter. They both would both make a lousy president. Hillary in general and Obama only for his misguided views on the role of government. I'd vote for Obama if I believed in socialism. I'm not worried about helping Ron Paul's strongest competition with a vote of confidence because he woud win against ANY of the democratic candidates.

This country needs Ron Paul.

Senator Obama's answer was definetly more presidential. He was and is willing to talk with these other world leaders at any time. Clinton was not. Why would Clinton set a first term moratorium on peace talks with your enemies? Does it make sense to put off talks until your 2nd or 3rd term as president when earlier sessions may solve important issues? Of course not! A president should be willing to talk peace anytime. We need more talks, less war! Obama won!!

Both these candidates are far from Presidential material. To even consider speaking to these dictators is a joke. Diplomacy worked very well with Hitler……..

I would first like to say that I served16 consecutive months in Iraq as an Infantry Soldier. A StaunchRepublican!Imust say that Barack Obama is right. The lack of interest, lack of knowledge of the mddle eastern states of the American people is plain stupid. "Too know your enemies'" You have to sit down and talk to them as I have fortunatley done over a 16 month period in Iraq, as well as 6 months in Afghanistan. It shows the shallowness, greed and ignorance of our peoples, and the ignorance as Americans.As political lders want to do nothing but deal with situations in the world with guns and threats! Yeah I am heated about these current debates over the fact that the blowhard, 500# head "people" are so guarded and secure when they visit Iraq or Afghanistan that they really do not have a clue what is going on!! Or protected by Miitary Commanders. Wake up and get a clue. read your History books and understand the past History of Imperialism and Occupation. Understand the reason the siblings of these Countries feel the way they do of our prescence! But understand true diplomacy, understand that negotiations only occur under strict and concurrent dialougue. That strong arm tactics will not prevail and the situation will only worsen if the problem is not dealt with. This is not a political fight on who is right and whom is wrong. It is an ideal of who is the real World leaders. Leaders deal with one another. They have a complete understanding of what is going on in the community. The world is our Community. I expect much more out of a contender for the presidency of our Country than, "We will not talk with them unless they agree to our terms pror to the meeting!"
Obama in my mind can fix alot of these problems with his less than arrogant attitude. Arrogance, greed, gluttony, Sloth. These Sins will not be accepted in the Muslim world. I promote the knowledge of world history in our schools so we can stop the ignorance.
He is the Man that has had dealings and upbringings in an Islamic and Muslim Comunity. He is the one that can fix our current National interests. Primarily because the Muslim world will have if only a little, a little more faith and confidence in him. "It is our World we are the ones that choose how we co-habitat together!"

Mike Bennnett
1SG U.S. Army

The "Cuban vote in South Florida" should go back to Cuba to fix their problems, we're talking about Americans, not Cubans, here. Now, if they are Americans living in South Florida and are concerned with AMERICA and what happens HERE then their opinion definitely matters.

Obama answered correctly. The best way to defeat your enemy is know your enemy. You can't know your enemy through reports, "intelligence", etc. Only looking into someone's eyes and hearing their respones can you possibly understand them and why they are doing what they are doing. Clinton's answered would have been good…until they released their typical mud-slinging notation twisting what Obama said to their viewpoint.

Hillary is an unwinnable candidate. There is no way this nation is ready for a woman President. Obama has more of a chance, but will his being Black override the racism that is still prevelent in the nation? At this point I don't know who I'd vote for (definitely NOT Republican…hasn't been a good one since Reagan) but so far Obama seems to at least want to try to get the Democrats back to a true national party instead of a puppet government of CEOs.

The Hillary camp is trying desperately to make noise to cover the fact that she lost the debate.

Her answer was timid and political — she is afraid to talk to people who might be making nuclear bombs because she doesn't want to give them a propaganda advantage? Give me a break! It will take bold leadership to diffuse the crisis with Iran; such leadership cannot come about if you are afraid of what the Sunday talking heads will say.

The right answer for her would have been "Hell yes, they need to be told that it is unacceptable to build nukes/deny the Holocaust/call Bush the Devil/survive US sanctions for 40 years — and I am the person to do it." Instead she showed herself to be as image-obsessed as Bush. "I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes" is the statement of a weak person and totally inappropriate for the CIC of what is still the strongest nation on Earth. In the end, who the hell cares what pathetic advantage the Iranians might get out of the meeting — sometimes face to face is the only way to get the message across clearly.

Hillary is now in the position of both advocating meeting with the "bad guys" that she supposedly has so much experience with, and saying that it is "naive" to do so. This will hurt her, she does not have her husband's skills at playing both sides.

When I heard Hillary's answer, it gave me chills because it seemed so calculated and familiar — but her follow-up memo is even worse. It may be politically clever to serve up the same old macho stance to a county accustomed to thinking it can force its will on the world, but seriously people, haven't we learned anything from the Iraq debacle? Our control of things is an illusion and to pose like it is our divine right to pick and choose which leaders another country has is just foolhardy. Talk about PROPAGANDA — Hillary is now campaigning like Geroge Bush! Please wake up and see who she really is… Hillary and the democratic establishment don't want to change anything — they just want to win! And they will continue the same old foreign policy nonsense as long as it allows them to gain and keep power. Obama is the more honest candidate and for that sin they will do everything they can to keep him from being taken seriously. That is what this dishonest, self-serving, worthy of Karl Rove memo is all about. ICK

“Senator Clinton is committed to vigorous diplomacy but understands that it is a mistake to commit the power and prestige of America’s presidency years"

Talk is cheap. Better to risk the president's prestige abroad than to risk our soldiers.

I respect Obama's willingness to risk his his own prestige in the national service. Hillary's response was old politics.

And no, we shouldn't be avoiding diplomacy and/or falling into war because a strategic constituency in Florida opposes it.

The two answers were the same, except Hillary's was "coached" whereas Obama's was a direct answer to the question. Both reflect each candidate's approaches to their campaigns. Neither is a surprise. Hillary's answer seems to lean closer to Bush's approach, who seems dead-set against diplomacy with anyone he thinks is "evil". She seems more concerned with protecting the presidency's reputation than averting world war or terrorism - when in fact the president's reputation is staked on her ability to do just that.

Since Obama is so into meeting face to face with the dictators he should also just meet with Osama Bin Ladin while he’s at it and solve those problems as well. Then we won’t have any terrorists. He should say that at the next debate; I’ll send him the suggestion-since he apparently is so open to them!

Finally a new refreshing view and brave new direction we can follow. Hillary can move to Punjab along with George Bush.

October 31, 2006, Council of Foreign Affairs:

"Direct negotiations (with Iran and Syria) are not a sign of weakness; they are a sign of leadership…The Bush Administration refuses to talk to anyone on the evil side, as some have call that idealistic, but I call it dangerously unrealistic."

June 27, 2007, the Center for a New American Security:

"The Bush administration has given Iran six years of the silent treatment…In this vacuum, Tehran continues its progress toward developing nuclear weapons and increasing its influence in the region…After initial talks with Iran and Syria on Iraq, the administration says it isn't sure that we need any more discussions with either of them. I think we should keep talking."

–Hillary Clinton

Both are comments by Hillary Clinton. She was once for talking to nations and now she is against it.I hope CNN will point out these comments Sen. Clinton made. She sounds like Mitt the Flip. This is trianglation at its best. Just Keeping them honest. Honestly the CNN debate rocked. The post debate coverage was awful.

What makes the next president stating that he would meet with our biggest national security concerns a non-intelligent thing to say? To make such a comment, first of all shows how apparent it is that America has a long way to go as far as perception of race and stereotypes. If the responses were reversed, I doubt that position would be described as such. Secondly, what better way to kick off the next presidency than by looking these guys squarely in the eyes and telling them where you stand and what you expect as the leader of the United States? The silent treatment is foolish…especially when we no longer have capable intelligence agencies working for us as in the days of the Cold War. I think Iran and North Korea appreciate greatly not having to "answer to" a U.S. president for the past 7 years, wouldn't you say so?

I am an American but I have a good understanding of politics from all over the world. The aloofness that I see in what Hillary Clinton said is why America is in trouble today. What propaganda is she worried about. This is not the era of the cold war. Most powerful politicians out there (most of them dictators) send unimportant officials to such talks. Nothing is achieved. The era of sloganeering about not negotiating with terrorists and all that is long gone. We need leaders who can go above mere politics of being worried about what the press would say when you talk to some of these evil dictators. I would respect a leader who would have the courage to tell some of these leaders his/her piece of mind. That is what a leader of the future is like. Hill thinks its still 1994. Its 2007, and the new geration everywhere in the world classifies America as evil. What will happen if other people in the world also refuse to talk to the American President. America needs to restore the kind of respect it had a long time ago. Helping in keeping the peace, not starting wars and being arrogant. Not being American I guess my opinion does not matter much, but those Americans who know enough of whats happening elsewhere in the world know and understand my sentiments.

Clinton must really think Obama is a serious threat to her candidacy. Otherwise, she wouldn't be attacking him directly and this early, not with the lead she has over him in the polls.

To Bob, Brooklyn, NY, could the question have just as easily read "Would you meet with terrorists that want to negotiate"? What would you say to someone that spurted out "Yes, yes I would meet with terrorists that want to negotiate."

Any smart adult should know that taking the position of not communicating with an enemy never solved anything. At least it's good to know that Obama's got guts to walk into a hostile evviornments and meet with other world leaders. Hil botched her answer that why she was first on the defensive attacking Obama's reply. Just like she bothced voting in support of the war. Bottom line Obama's got her number. If her last name were not Clinton she wouldn't have a chance.

Ted
Los Angeles, Ca.

-You know when I saw the above picture added to this article, I thought the same thing; "Is Hillary covering her microphone in that picture?"

I guess she didn't want to make the same mistake twice. (Her chat with Edwards.)

-I feel how Obama responded to the question was a good answer. And I don't disagree with him at all. How can any candidate simply say they will never talk with another nation? Even if it's one that has expressed hostile notions towards our country?

Listen, when it comes down to it, having diplomatic meetings with hostile nations in the past has avoided disasters. Obama is right that possibly meeting with these "rouge nations" is not something that should simply be dismissed. There will likely be a time when there can be positive benefits with meeting with the top brass from these rouge nations.

Clinton is deliberately misrepresenting Obama's words here. He never "committed" to having these meetings; he merely indicated that he "would be" willing, to use his own language and that of the questioner. She's clearly slipping, looking for anything she can to drag down Sen. Obama …

It's interesting to see HRC add the phrase "without precondition" to her memo, which the AP - and most of the media - seem to be "quoting" or simply allowing to be erroneously reported. That wasn't part of the question. He was asked IF he would - not how he would arrange it. DUH. His answer was simply too concise and direct. The man who submitted the question was entirely satisfied, according to CNN's post-debate coverage.

Isn't it time we moved on from the policy of not talking to our 'enemies'? I'm sick and tired of politicians placating the South Florida vote by cowtowing to the anti-Castro crowd. It hasn't worked for almost 50 years, why do you think it will work now? The old man will die soon and we (the US) need to be in a position to assist there when he does. Obama is right on here and Clinton is emblematic of cold war-old school imperialist American thought. We need change not the same old song and dance.

These two are stumbling around trying to find points that excite individuals without care for what is best for the US interests. True professional politicians to the core, individuals that never held a job in their entire life, nor dealt with real life issues!

I don't feel he blew the answer, I believe he answered it according to what he feels he is capable of doing. Let's face it, he's the only candidate on that stage last night that could go to these countries for presidential-level meetings during his first year in office. Even if Hillary was a man she couldn't. That's what I don't get about all of this. Here we go again with the same people, doing the very same things expecting different results…it's called insanity.

Could not even hear Obama's radio response today as broadcast on CNN. Static over the voice? Big Disappointment. CNN needs to do better. Subtitles might have worked.

Obama is right. Meeting with these countries is what we have to do to keep the peace and keep America safe. Otherwise, we risk going to war again and again. I am glad we finally have someone willing to put pride and personal prejudices aside to do what is best for our country.

Why not meet with Chavez or anyone else? Do we really want enemies in South America too? Who cares what the Cubans think? Are we suppose to fight everyone now?

Barak, stick to your gut. Hillary is trying to please everyone and really saying nothing.

Engagement requires meeting world leaders in person. The US President needs to take personal ownership in restoring credibility abroad. Hence, mr. Obama's approach is the right one. We already know what the difference are. Don't send more envoys. Get on the plane yourself. He can meet and explain in person what our core values are, better understand theirs, and hopefully find some common ground with leaders of Iran, Venezuela. Go Obama.

The analogy Obama used was completely unfitting for the situation the question referenced. He wants to sit down with Kim Jong-il and Chavez because Reagan sat down with Gorbachev? The man deserves to be laughed out of this race immediately, on account of his inexperience. I have some issues with Hilary's stances, but she's clearly the more knowledgeable candidate on foreign policy issues like this one.

My previous comment should read that most Americans probably do NOT know that Haiti was the second independent country in this hemisphere.

I think the more people hear Hillary speak, the more they realize she is person who makes her decisions based on her ego/image rather than what's good for the American people.

Some people are genuine and some people play the political game so much they lose who they are. Hillary is becomming more and more of the latter.

I consider the debates via YouTube are revolutionary! Wher an individual can ask a politician a question directly is amaazing! Thanks to CNN & You Tube.

Actually all of the right wing exiles are so closely aligned with the republican party that they are no longer honest brokers in the sense of being able to discern a national interest. We haven't talked to the Cuban government for over 30 years and were actively engaged in trying to overthrow their government and assassinate their leaders. Is this the proper way to engage?
Actually this policy of not talking to governments has a VERY long history. It was first implemented with respect to Haiti, which was the second country in this hemisphere to win its independence. Most Americans probably know this!
Of course the slaveowners who controlled the US government in the early 1800s couldn't give diplomatic recognition to a country that freed itself via a slave rebellion! Of course that policy undercut the possibility that Haiti could organically grown into maturity. Of course the slaveowners could care less, but the policy was a disaster for the people of Haiti.
Welcome to the Clinton campaign - repeating some cardinal mistakes from the past several hundred years with respect to our Americas.

I'm basically a Hill supporter, but her answer here plays directly into the hands of the proponents of the Repulicrats. It is probably the "right" answer however Obama's answer is what we want to hear after the intractable sulker passing out the silent treatment. I am getting really tired of the holders of the President Office calling themselves the "Leader of the World" the "Most Powerful Person in the World"; a little humility would be very refreshing, an understanding that even if you hold an office "You the Person" are just a normal human who puts on his pants one leg at a time. Obama is refreshing.

The question was, "Would you be willing to meet separately during the first year of your administration with leaders of Syria, Iran, Venezuela and others to bridge the gap between our countries?”But the Clinton campaign decided to interpret the word "willing" as "committed." Wonderful that they've interpreted intent as commitment for all of us that can't understand the former.

We may not need "presidential-level" meetings, but we need more constructive diplomacy besides not talking to them and hoping they'll go away.

Clinton gave the safe, weak answer ("a vigorous diplomatic effort.") that we've all heard before. Obama gave an original answer that promises change.

What we're doing now isn't working, and the leaders of these foreign countries aren't going away. Clinton seems to promise more of what we're already doing. Obama seems to want change, and that's what we need now more than ever.

Who is the real Hillary Clinton?
(1) she votes for the Iraq war.
(2) in 2006 she impedes the democrats attempt to have a timetable for withdrawal.
(3) in an earlier CNN debate she says that the USA is safer since 9/11, but last week the CIA says the opposite

Now she wants to end the war and have a timetable.

Money can't buy this kind of experience, but it sure can prevent the news media from showing her inconsistency

Can you tell that I think Obama won?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yuMdnktphM

Obama's answer was honest; Clinton's answer was, well, a typically political, no-committment, nonanswer.