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?

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

Senator Obama may be naive but Senator Clinton is dillusional. She could vist 8500 countries as someone's wife and that wouldn't count for one day's experience in foreign affairs. she met with the spouses(male or female). The leaders met with the leaders. Come on!!
She has no more experience than any of the other candiates

Honestly, I agree with Obama. By having these separatists attitudes, nothing will ever change.

We are constantly judging other dictators whose methods are more openly insane, however, our own government is also insane and is more covert about it. Humans are humans and we can not expect to create a oneness amongst all unless we reach out and recognize that fact, without judgement.

Politicians are more concerned about the SPIN then getting in there and just doing it. Maybe if someone with a loving, open, unjudging heart was to approach one of these dictators, there could be a mending of sorts. I'm sure for every insane deed done by one of those leaders in another country, there is a covert version going on somewhere committed by someone in our government.

Americans love to point the finger of righteousness, but most do not see the big picture, nor do they care to.

Love.Peace.Joy

Do the Democrats realize they arent running against Bush? Every answer involves a swipe at Bush. Not a Bush fan here, but this is not a good way to win Republican votes in the end.

Time for a valid 3rd party to unite the moderate middle!

I believe Hillary and Obama both did well in the debates. Each answer as it relates to meeting with foreign powers was good in its own right. Any answer is better than the present situation with the Bush Administration who has alienated everyone in the world. Dialogue is not a bad thing and certainly not to be used for propaganda purposes. Surely each candidate would abide by those rules with foreign leaders when president. They just didn't get to explain it all in a 30 second soundbite. Both answers by each candidate were good. I don't think Hillary and Obama need to be at odds over their respective answers. I think this is being blown out of proportion by the media. The debate by the way was excellent with all candidates and YouTube and Anderson Cooper! Great job to CNN.. The democrats were the pioneers in this format – remember that.. The Repubs are home practicing now for their turn.. Certain most questions for the right will be about God and patriotism but hopefully questions to them will be more challenging – like stem cell research, Universal Health Care, getting us out of Iraq (yesterday) and why not!

The question was about whether BO was willing, as president, to meet with Iran, Syria, etc. The question was not about what his preconditions were, and I hope that trying to widen that into a gaffe will show that HC is just making shrill noise.

First off, it seems pretty silly to assume that because he didn't mention it, Barack wouldn't have his people prepare the way for any major presidential visits. That just goes without saying.

Hillary's qualifying statements, and her overconcern with perceptions and powerplays seemed to me like more of the same in the foreign policy department. Barack's comment represented a fundamental shift in the way foreign policy is run. Like a breath of fresh air.

The fact that Hillary then tried to score political points off the exchange the very next day just seals the deal to me. She's a cold, calculated, opportunist and I would rather have Barack's genuineness, openness, and real concern for the American people any day.

GOBAMA!

Hillary is so obviously a tool, and like McCain will say anything to get elected. She changes stance left and right, manipulates, and in this case, says some ridiculous stuff to try anything to unseat the guy that everyone but CNN sees is the better opponent.

Speaking of, when is CNN gonna stop pandering to such obvious corporate tools as Hillary? Does anyone really believe she's not already in bed with the same folks that brought us 8 years of Bush? Everywhere i looked today, Obama took that debate, except CNN. WHY?

Obama gave a common sense answer, and that registers with me. Maybe he's not a political droid conditioned to follow the same incorrect approaches that we've become accustomed to. The American diplomatic arrogance is part of the reason these states deify us and why Iraq has progressed so poorly. Even if the meeting results in nothing, at least it gets rid of the myth that America hates the people in their country and not just their policies. World leaders should be smart enough to have dialog even if they don't agree.

I'm sure he wouldn't meet until he knew the conditions of a meeting. That's just common sense, and I'm sure he understands basic diplomacy.

This is another example of the media’s manipulation of the context of Obama’s response. Just because he did not add a cavet to his response does not mean he will haphazardly meet with these leaders without caution. He was given a very direct question and he gave a very direct answer with the time he was given. The media is making this an issue to show Obama in a bad light. Both Clinton and Obama gave the same bottom line answer: Yes. The media needs to leave it at that.

During this day and age I would suggest that the solutions to our problems may be found outside of the box. From what I understand, the goal of any presidential candidate is to improve the overall well being of the Country and the world. Perhaps we should take a moment to not just think about this upcoming election, but to think beyond that and take opportunities to set aside pride and prepare for future in untraditional ways now. Tell me why it is not possible for both Obama and Clinton to enter the Whitehouse as a team. Both are capable of leading our country to a greater good. Why not enter the Whitehouse with Clinton taking the presidency as she has significant experience, Obama gets his feet wet in the Whitehouse as VP. If enough intelligent people ponder that long enough we can see how much that might be beneficial. There could be unprecidented progress and understanding of what leadership in a free country really is. Many in this country already know that both will die trying to fullfill their promise to the country before letting us down. Neither the first Black president or the first woman president are about the enter the Whitehouse without realizing they set the standard for those who follow. Thats exactly the kind of hard core motivation we need to fix the planets hard core problems.

Obama answered the question correctly. The new president, whoever he/she might be needs to be meeting with EVERY leader of EVERY country – its just a matter of respect & common courtesy. It doesn't mean that we are promising them anything. Hillary's has it all wrong..

I'm glad to see that Hillary Clinton, like many other ignorant politicians before her, continues to believe that ignoring anti american politicians abroad is sound diplomacy. Anyone who knows anything about the history of U.S. 20th century diplomacy knows that the U.S. goverment will continue diplomatic relations with any foriegn government, dictator, murderer,or criminal,as long as they go along with U.S. political and economic ideology. During the last 50 years including 8 years under her husband Bill Clinton, the U.S. government including it's Presidency have been willing to continue friendly relations, sometimes entirely proping up terrible dictators, so that we can attain political and economic goals. These practice which have occured in Iran in the 60's and 70's, in Iraq in the 80's, and in Pakistan, Morocco,Egypt and Saudia Arabia today have all fueled the fire which is anti americanism in the Muslim world. In the rare situation where U.S. politicians have had the guts to reach out to a "dangerous leader" and attempt diplomacy, not just a policy of "unless you bow down we don't believe you exist" great things have happened. The fall of the Soviet Union is just one minor example. If Hilary thinks it is the appropriate course of action following the last 50 years of screw ups to continue to ignore anti American regimes, who have a right to be anti american, (typically it was our economic imperialism which screwed them up in the first place) then she has no right to be running on any progressive ticket. Americans have been blind for too long, standing around while politicians tell us what countries are good and bad and who we should trust. One last tid bid to make my point….although no one on this side of the border will probably care. For over 70 years the U.S. and its leaders let the PRI party in Mexico run one of the worlds most perfect dictatorships, in the process letting one of the most promising countries in all of Latin America deteriorate into desperate poverty, and corruption. This all during a time period when the U.S. was suposedly on a world wide mission to safe guard democracy. Barack Obama might have his response to a question regarding high level diplomatic interaction (with countries like Syria, North Korea, Iran) spun to sound like he is inexperienced by Hillary and the rest of the news media, but anyone with a speck of reason who can think on their own and not listen to the lies fed to them by our government, will realize that we must as Barack quickly pointed out, reach out to our enemies and give them the respect that will ensure American safety not promote more hatred. We must also reach out to the citizens of the many countries whos dictatoral leaders we hold relations with, and let them know that we will stop supporting their oppressive regimes unless real change is made. And we must have a President who will actually stand for freedom, democracy, and prosperity through UNITY, not just sell it as a weightless slogan.

Obama should be commended for repudiating the Bush administration's failed isolationist foreign policy by promising to speak with the leaders of what the Bush administration considers to be 'bad'. There is no other world that we live in, and the only way there will be progress of any kind – if it is war, so be it – but for progress to occur, and to have the best chance for success, we must speak to these leaders. They are in fact the leaders of their respective countries. People cannot come to our country and speak to Al Gore, as though he was the president. It's Bush, anyway you like it – somehow he's president.

Hillary Clinton is now on the record as saying we will have more of the same – supporting the Bush administrations arrogant, one-dimensional, and frighteningly suicidal foreign policy.

Thank you Barak Obama, I know that while the media is purely tuned into what the Republicans see as an opportunity to knock out the candidate they fear most – you will prevail.

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: someone who will stick to the status quo and use diplomacy to play politics and win points (Hillary), or a real leader (Obama) who sits our adversaries down and takes their measure right away. I choose Obama; I think he's just smarter and more concerned about the country than his political career.

Hillary is a fraud. She tries to have it both ways. Jut inn April she said the samewhat Obama said.
I Hate Her and will not vote for her

Just what we need another shoot from your hip cowboy, or in this case, cowgirl your with us or against us mentality. President Clinton endorsed the idea himself when he said that he did not think speaking to these leaders was tanamount to weakness. Yet, another example of Hillary trying to prove how tough she can be. Hey, I have an idea, why rejoin the rest of the world and attempt to spread our influence through diplomacy and alliances.

Mrs. Clinton seems to have overlooked the wording of the question. Obama saying he would be "willing" to meet with these people doesn't sound like much of a commitment to me; rather, he wouldn't rule such methods out. Clinton, on the other hand, sounds like she would be unwilling to shake things up by doing things radically different than our current president. I know, and I think Obama knows, that being willing to talk to dictators and being able to make progress by holding such meetings are worlds apart, but these answers just make me more clear about Obama's stance and more confused about Clinton's.

Senator Obama once again took a question head on and once again Hillary tries to act like she's the know all on foreign affairs. Out of sight, out of mind seems to be the running theme for our "seasoned" senators. Hillary once again proves it. She can't take a stand and stick to it. She is just another puppet. She get the nod for president… I am leading the wagon train to Canada.

Obama was right! He wasn't saying he would open the door to anyone at any time. The reality for all of the arrogant Americans out there is we exist on this planet with other countries that have different beliefs and point of views than ours. Isn’t this the reason why we live in such a great country in the first place? To respect others and come to some common ground for the greater good? Least we forget we have done our dirt too! A little reminder: The bible says those without sin cast the first stone! America do you remember: Indentures servitude, African slavery and Manifest Destiny that killed millions of Native American, Irish and Jewish Oppression, The Mexican War, The Civil War, Jim Crow, Japanese Confinement Camps, Macarthyism, Vietnam, The Cold War, oh and ahh…IRAQ!

A real president/leader has to reach out to different countries around the world, which is sometimes ruled by a few difficult leaders. This has been true through out human existence. I’m sure many countries see us as difficult right about now. This doesn't mean that their or our policies won’t ever change. We are hoping for change aren’t we? Regan, Lincoln, Washington, Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. all reached out. The fact of the matter is we are all connected and we ARE our brother’s keeper. America is a melting pot of cultures and families in different countries. Do we close the door of discussion with our neighbors, families and friends? Giving peace and understanding a chance is not a sign of weakness or in experience Mrs. Clinton and the Republican baby boomers. It’s a sign of wisdom and true character. May God bless America and Obama in 2008!

Give me a break. This was a complex question with 30 secs to 1 min for response. Sen. Clinton had that much extra time to select her words and Sen. Obama likely believed that the American people had the ability to assume certain things would occur pre-meeting. However, I can see how we would be skeptical after our experience with the current administration. He seemed to communicate that he would be open to diplomatic meetings. Sen. Clinton stated basically the same, but added that she would qualify it first. Their answers were not that dramatically different. Are there really people out that who think Sen. Obama meant that he would get up one day and hop a flight to Cuba or anywhere else and just show up for a chat? Come on people!

I thought Obama's answer was perfect. What's wrong with talking with other sovereign states? If our president has to be afraid of being used for propaganda everytime they decide to meet with a rogue state, then America is in much worse shape than I thought. I agree with Obama. And I loved his answer in return… that Hillary was "naive and inexperienced" in the fact that she voted for the Iraq war. Go Obama!!!

I think it is pretty obvious that Obama said he was willing to meet with them – not that he offered a an unconditional agreement to be at their beck and call.

Please…

Despite the excrement Clinton's campaign is spewing (which amounts to naught but the politics of grasping at straws), Obama was right on, and should be lauded for his stance. The petty refusal to meet with leaders hostile to the US and its policies is to forego a critical step in mitigating the ever-looming possibility of armed conflict. The Bush administration's superiority complex, laid bare by way of it's "we don't negotiate with terrorists" stance, amounts to a cowboy shoot-first-ask-questions-later policy concerning foreign relations. In the past it's been proven that a single meeting can go a long way toward keeping the military out of a given confrontation.

amazing how people split hairs about what candidates say… that candidates cannot change their views or stands on issues without being subjected to name-calling merely indicates the small brainpower of those who are critical. It's been said that it takes more courage to change one's mind than to continue with the same obstructed vision. Too many voters simply don't understand that concept… and I'm not even a rocket scientist, but it seems extremely elementary!.

Hillary is nitpicking again. More importantly, she is now bonding with women and has formed a women's pac, according to USA Today July 24 Edition.
Will someone ever think to ask her, during one of these "debates" what she thinks men's issues are and how she would address those!

Obama said he'd be willing to meet with them during his first term. He didn't make a blanket statement. He said he was willing. So did Sen. Clinton. Big deal. Obama handled the debate well and that's a challenge to Clinton. She's just trying to offset his momentum, which is what political candidates do.

I'm sorry – this sounds petty. Yes, Clinton gave an excellent answer but that doesn't mean that Obama would be Castro's lap dog. Give me a break! He said he would meet with these guys; of course he isn't going to go running over there 1st chance he gets – there would be a lot of thought and discussion beforehand.

I do not think any country's leader should have to bow and scrape to talk to the leader of our country. This current administration has refused to talk with others with dire consequences. I think Obama was correct in saying that he would talk direct (to any and all leaders). Our leader must be open and if necessary be "used" by other leaders even though it may give the other leader a little stature. Clinton belongs to the old (and I mean old) school of thinking, just like Bush. Don't talk – make them listen first. Don't try to make other leaders feel inferior. In all cases it should be – ask your man to contact my man – lets talk. Hillary has been around too long — Bill made an ass of himself. Our country needs a change!!

"Serious gaffe"? Got to love these rhetorical games. "Senator Obama has committed to presidential-level meetings with some of the world’s worst dictators without precondition during his first year in office"… You think Obama's team would not do their homework before any high-level meeting? What a joke. The truth is that Hilary and Obama both answered the same way: They both agree that ignoring communication is not the most effective way to handle leaders of hostile countries. Makes me wonder how Hilary's condescending attitude (once again highlighted by this memo provided to the press by her campaign team) would fair in "high-level" international meetings?

Connie TN.

You give too much credit to Iran President & Venezuela's President by calling those Nut-jobs Leaders.

Maybe if Hitler were alive you would say to meet with Hitler…and call him a world leader.?

You do NOT meet with those who want to do harm against the USA…that makes them significant as leaders….when they should not be taken seriously at all…unless they change their attitudes.

You are wrong to think Obama is presidential in any way….Obama isn't even vice presidential material…maybe in another 8 years if still a senator…then maybe he can be thought of as a Vice President.

Hilary is sooooo far above Obama.

The only reason Obama is even in consideration is because he happens to be a black Senator who gave the keynote address at the Democratic Convention. He lacks the experience we need in the Oval Office today. I honestly believe he would be a more polarizing figure than the remaining Democrat candidates.

We need a President who will command respect around the world. We need a President who recognizes the plight of the disenfranchised Americans who have been left behind by the imposter President George W. Bush. I predict a Clinton-Biden ticket next year and I predict that it will resoundingly defeat whatever Republican is offered as the sacrificial lamb. The party of Lincoln has been usurped by "do gooders" who have destroyed its' foundation in American politics.

Hillary is more george bushlike than I care to see. Her tendencies are like that of Dubya'–so the question is–do we want another politician in the White House? Or do we want someone who represents the people and can get things done on foreign policy? Senator Obama is just that candidate!

Good for them both! Just entertaining the 'thought' of talking is refreshing. Clinton shows caution; Obama, not so much. She is a bit more seasoned, Obama optomistic. We know not talking isn't working so well. Right now just talking about talking sounds wonderful from whomever will entertain the idea.

Hilary's concern about "being used for propaganda purposes" is telling in that she is more concerned with how she looks than with getting results. That's the difference between being a politician and being a statesman.

Ignoring those countries will not make them go away. Bush's belief that sticking his fingers in his ears and pretending that it is somehow going to happen is ridiculous. Obama may have answered hastily, but at least he answered. I found Clinton's response to be a more political doubletalk. I didn't really mind it from her husband because he had a personality. She is just a cold fish.

I still like Bill Richardson best – he doesn't have any use for political platitudes and neither do I.

Why of course the major media and the Clinton Campaign would say that Hillary's answer is the better answer, because, it was her attempt to be different from Barack and to try to show his inexperience.

However, watch the voter meter when Barack gave his answer and how it rose vs how the meter did not go high in the hands of the VOTER. Now what does that say?

The political pundits and the media are NOT in touch with the people. BTW Barack made his statement because he is talking about Diplomacy and it is relative. Hillary is doing her flip flop on what she previously has said about diplomacy. Barack won and has to stand his ground and be unafraid to speak truth to power. Hillary's answer is like her answer on why she voted for the war "if I had known then what I know now, I would have NOT voted for the war" She did NOT think then and she and her campaign are NOT thinking now. Use of diplomacy is what we need, that is what Barack is talking about and that is what Bush does NOT do.

This is one of the reasons I like Hilary Clinton less and less. Her claims that somehow Obama's direct answer to the question implied there would be no preparation leading up to his discussions is dishonest and the kind of rhetoric that they have objected to from the Republicans. Actually Hilary's answer implies that she would waste her first year setting up direct discussions with Syria, Iran, Cuba and others. She should have been this deliberate when she made the disastrous decision to support this President she now vilifies. She also recently said that we are safer than we were before 9-11. Talk about a blunder!

This is indeed a non-issue. Neither of them specifically stated that they wouldn't meet with a foreign leader who had recently authorised airstrikes against US cities, or who had personally tortured American hostages on prime-time TV. Does that mean that they would? Of course not. The question was basically a "yes/no" answer, not an invitation to outline every single instance in which either of them would/would not/might/might not meet with the leader of a non-allied country!

It's all hypothetical. There's no right or wrong answer to that question. Just do the opposite of Bush and you're better off.

Apparently, viewers commenting on the diplomacy issue didn't pay close attention to Senator Obama's first four or five words… "Yes, I will send a signal…" Did anyone else hear that? What do you think he meant? I think his comments were exactly right.

Hillary gave a responsible answer to one of the most important questions of the evening. Certainly, when the occupant of the world's most powerful office meets with anyone, it lends a tremendous amount of credibility to that individual and his program.

I'm not a fan of either candidate, but Obama's rhetoric and lack of substantive answers is catching up; he's out of his league. Hillary on the other hand has handled difficult questions quite well, as opposed to the simplicity we've received from the others.

This is an interesting way of presenting the facts. CNN reported whether Obama, "committed a serious gaffe." However, it could easily be reported the other way around, i.e. if Hillary had 'committed a serious gaffe.'

I agree with the previous comments that this is splitting hairs, but the details of the reporting are worth noting…

Implicitly, they both said the same thing. It's a distinction without a difference to me. Of course, Obama would have lower level talks before sailing off on a blind mission and what Hillary said also made sense.

I find the reporting on the aftermath of the debate to be suspect. It seems to me that CNN wants Hilary to win over Obama and continually attempts to knit-pick at Obama while bolstering Clinton's image. Frankly, I think Obama won that debate and Hilary did well too. They both were far and above the other candidates. What I would say is, stop spinning please. As a Dem, if Hilary gets into the race as Presidential candidate, I fear her polarizing history will lead to another Democratic defeat to the Republicans. That would be a horrible tragedy.

I love Bush, and his foreign policies. Obama and Clinton are like a oreo cookie that just cracked into pieces. Oh my God, my God, when are you going to come my Savior and relieve the American people of taxes. I believe my God can clean up America because damn Democrats and Republicans aren't doing it.

Clintons seem to only know one way of campaigning, and that's with a heavy dose of mudslinging.

Hillary's tactics to smear others is going to backfire, I hope.

Ron Paul has never smeared anyone. I think Obama has not done so either.

She looks really petty. After approving the Iraq war and being a shill for special interest groups, she should look herself in the mirror.

And if the worst thing she can find about her opponent is a choice of words, she's pathetic.

I love Obama's immediate "Yes!", to diplomacy. His enthusiasm for doing good is contageous.

We can all see through her lame tactics, "I am down in the polls, and I have nothing good to say, so I will resort to saying bad things about my opponents", that no longer works. We are too smart for smear campaigns.

I'm Cuban-American and I liked Obama's answer. I think any true leader should be willing to meet even with dictators, but it doesn't mean you necessarily will. I still think they're (Clinton and Obama) equal in South Florida.

You have to love Clinton's spinning Obama's willingness to talk to world leaders into a promise to talk to those world leaders regardless of those world leaders' intentions.

Uh..vast majority of Cubans in Florida are loyal Republicans. They wouldn't have voted for Obama or Clinton.

One thing's for sure, NOT taking has never solved ANY problems.

Hillary couldn't wait to jump on his answer…she was practically salivating after Obama's gaffe. His answer was naive and further evidence that he is not ready…needs a little more seasoning in AAA ball.

I'm not a Hillary fan, but her answer was right and his was wrong.

I applaud Obama for having the courage to recognize that keeping the dialog open with countries that we do not have a good relationship with so that common ground can be found and wars can be avoided. It is obvious that any head of state would have his people make the preliminary overtures–before speaking with the head of state. That wasn't the question asked- so Obama didn't go into those obvious details. Obama is not afraid to develop bridges- Clinton is worried about Propaganda.Obama has it right. Hillary doesn't!

I don't like either of them, but he blew it, all right. He showed he is naive and doesn't understand the nuance of international diplomacy enough to even keep his mouth shut, whereas Clinton immediately demonstrated a thorough knowledge of how things work. It makes you wonder how much else the senator from Illinois is in the dark about.

It is a clear example of obama being inexperience and hasty on improtant issue.

Kim,
Maybe she had to cough or something and covered the mic!

I liked Obama's answer. You don't make situations better by snubbing your enemies.
In reality they both gave the same answer. Obama assumed us to be intelligent enough to recognize a simple "yes" does not mean "I'm going to make it an absolute priority". Clinton used her time to explain the differences between the two interpretations, then answered "Yes, under my conditions". I take for granted that a President is going to have conditions before visiting any world leader. Therefore I say they gave the same answer.

The U.S. Justice Department announced June 12, 1998 that it would formally apologize to more than 2,200 people of Japanese ancestry who were forcibly removed from Latin American countries and interned in the United States during World War II.

And under the lawsuit settlement surviving internees can receive $5,000 each in compensation.

If the ancestors of the Japanese got reparations then why do the candidates that are running for president want to deny black people the same Privilege? Is it racism?

The kidnapping of black people from Africa. The Unspeakable atrocities such as slavery and lynching. No other people have suffered such despicably horrible and repugnant exploitation, degradation and genocide such as black people. Black people have been alienated from the mainstream of society since day one. And the candidates want black people to have reparations.

Could CNN stop acting like part of the Clinton campaign. Between Wolf Blitzer and Jeffrey Toobin, they sounded like Clinton operatives. Barack Obama won the debate according to your own NH voter survey. By the way, a more important question is why did any Democrat choose to vote for the war.

The only thing this shows is that Obama can give a straight answer. Of course, in the complex world of international diplomacy a straight answer is rarely the best answer, but this debate is for ordinary voters to get a clear idea where these candidates stand. There will be enough spin doctors, Dep. of State staff and others to put a spin on any declaration and explore all possible channels first (that holds for any president in international diplomacy). What people expected to hear now is what is the candidate's general position to the issue.
Actually, I do not dislike Clinton's ideas and ambition (or over-ambition, but OK). But everything she says seems so over-calculated, so scripted, so checked over and over by hoards of advisors, it makes it so hard to believe she is honest (even when she is).

We saw the rest, and then we saw the best. All of the candidates give excellent answers to the questions but one stood out of the crowd and that one was Barrack Obama.
Barrack Obama had Charisma, style and has a certain presence about him that garners respect. Obama answered the entire segment of questions with what seemed to be sincerity. His demeanor and character said it all. He is undeniably the person for the job of President.

It appears that the Hillary camp took Obama's reply out of context. In this article the question says would the candidate be willing to "meet “with leaders of Syria, Iran, Venezuela during their first term,” NOT in their first year in office. Why should we let the truth get in the way?

HILLARY SHOWS EXPERINCE. WHILE OBAMA SHOWS THAT HE IS NOT SEASONED ENOUGH TO BE PRESIDENT, WE HAVE ONE NOW THAT SHOWS WHAT LACKING. AND KING WANNA BE THAT HAS GOTTEN THE U.S. IN A HEAP OF TROUBLE.

That's right Rada, U.S. will just fall to pieces without the hispanic vote, that, by the way, can't seem to distinguish the difference between legal and illegal. Quite frankly I love both candidates, but Obama is fresh blood without a whole lot of baggage, or shall I say, old school. You are right, Hillary is experienced at just that, old fashioned politics, but there is a new generation waiting to be governed, and you may as well face it, Obama is it!

Doesn't CNN have something better to do than report on inconsequential press releases from their war rooms? Besides, what does it matter since neither are electable.

The Cuban vote? Haha… Oh no!! Beware the Cuban vote!!!

Sorry if I am not smart enough to truly appreciate Hillary Clinton's answer…but it seemed a little like B.S. to me. Same old semantical run-around that all politicians spew on command. I'm glad Obama "screwed up" by answering honestly instead of diplomatically. Hill Clinton is a harpy… seriously. Look at her. she looks like some kind of wild ostrich ready to peck your eyes out. And she is bitter, frigid and contemptuous. She will be worse than Nixon… you wait.

In response to the above comment regarding the Hispanics/Cubans in S. Florida no Obama vote … Let's face history w/ politics in America, who do you think is going to serve your interest better and be even-handed w/ American resources: Clinton or Obama?

Did Madeleine Albright really use the word SPADEwork when discussing what a Bl;ack Politition would need to do before becoming successful?

"I would think that without having done the diplomatic spadework, it would not really prove anything," former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said in a conference call with reporters set up by the Clinton campaign.

This only proves my point further why Hillary Clinton should get the nomination for President because she is smart, tough, and has a great deal of experience. What happened here is a good example of Obama's lack of experience which proves he isn't ready for the position to become President of the United States. My vote is going to Hillary Clinton.

I would have to agree with both. However, I would take a "cautiously optomistic approach" with hostile nations.

You can't just write them off and say feck it….(We're better than they are; they're evil, "the bad guys", while we're "the good guys".)

The Cheney administration…(note emphasis on Cheney; since he pulls the strings) has taken an all or nothing approach with all of our friends and enemies. In the end our friends decided to let the US go it alone while our enemies were only hardened.

THE TICKET SHOULD READ OBAMMA FIRST,THE GOV OF NEW MEXICO SECOND. CLINTON HAD HER CHANCE WHEN EVERYONE THOUGHT BILL WAS RUNNING THE COUNTRY AND SHE WAS PULLING ALL THE STRINGS. IF ANYONE PAID ATTENTION THE GOV OF NEW MEXICO REALLY MADE SOME VALID POINTS AND LOOKS LIKE HE CAN SHOW HIS POINTS WITH THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS HE HAS MADE IN HIS STATE. LOOK AT THEIR RECORDS FROM POST 911 UNTIL NOW. HILLARY WANTS TO TALK ABOUT CLINTON YRS IN WHITE HOUSE BUT WHAT HAS SHE REALLY DID ON HER OWN SINCE BECOMING SENATOR FOR ALL THE PEOPLE AND NOT JUST FOR NEW YORKERS.

What a joke..as if Obama would allow himself to be used for propoganda. This just wreaks of fear that the Clinton campaign is feeling about their legitimacy as "frontrunner". Obviously Obama would have groundwork laid before a meeting would take place. Just cheap political tricks by someone afraid her message to the people isn't enough to get elected. Every time I hear her say the word "change" it makes me both laugh and cry at the same time. I hope your country's electorate shows some wisdom and see's through this.

this is the kind of dumb reaction that makes politics ridiculous. Obama's answer was just fine, so was Hillary's. But in the aftermath they try to make it sound like the answers were completely novice, and moreso that this type of mentality has no place in politics? -1 for the Clinton's.

"Direct negotiations are not a sign of weakness; they are a sign of leadershhip. The Bush Administrations refusal to talk to anyone on the evil side, as some have called idealistic, I call it dangerously unrealistic." – Hillary Clinton, October 31, 2006 at the Council of Foreign Relations

So…is this statement "irresponsible and naive"? Or has she flip-flopped?

Clinton's comment made her look very political. Like a 'gotcha, you forgot to dot that i'.

Hillary will say anyting to get elected. She's simply power-mad and untrustworthy. She and her husband both. How many years does one actually need in the white house?

let it go and get some help FUHRC

April 21, 2007
<>

The difference between the answers is substantial. Obama made a passionate, sincere statement and sounded like it. Hillary demonstrated experience in recognizing that, like many of the issues about which the candidates were asked, the solution Is Not That Simple. I think she came across as less direct and persuasive, because treating things as if they Are That Simple makes for better sound bites. Nevertheless, Obama looked better to many for his unequivocal (albeit simplistic) stance. The Clinton camp is trying to teach us what actual experience looks like.

Only problem is… Hillary has a unique ability to rally Republicans against her, and independants don't like her either. (And as a Democrat, I don't find her particularly inspiring.) I think she should be Obama's Cheney.

This is why Hillary should never be president. It's nothing but a sly, petty, pitiful attempt to hurt Obama. There was no right answer to that question. Anyone that gives this "gaffe" any credibility is a moron.

Saying you would talk to your enemies is no gaffe. Discussing your problems through diplomacy should always be preferable to war or ignoring each other. That's not to say we should meet with every "bad person" or terrorist that has a beef with the US or that war isn't necessary. I'm just saying if the US at least put the effort into discussing our problems with Iran, Syria, and others; the Middle East might be a different place today.

Let me leave you with this: when it comes to dealing with problems with other countries you have ONLY two choices: War or Diplomacy. You can ignore the problems sure, for days, years, even decades. But in the end you still come back to the two choices above. So what do you want our future president to do? Continue the war? Talk it out? Or leave for the 2012 debate?

Obama answered it fine. There was no gaffe, and besides, it was the right answer. It is just like he said last night: JFK and Reagan maintained a direct phone connection w/ the USSR head of state throughout their presidencies…

Saying Obama "blew it" is pure political bs. This is the stance Hilary has been taking all along. She totally reversed her previous position. Obama is right. We need to talk to our "enemies" How else do you get to know them? Bush has created "Bogey men" of nation states because he refuses to communicate.

obama got the answer right.

it was clinton that blew it.

Cutting to the issues simple it appears Clinton is playing political games on positioning and making something negative out of Obama's common sense response. We should be willing to talk to Anyone who can help save lives and enlighten us on internal politics. In college I once heard, "A truth is a truth regardless of the camp it came from as a source".

You have to remember one important thing here.. Obama's answer was passionate, but Hillary has the benefit of 8 years of of "White House experience"…

By this I mean, I do not think Obama committed any kind of serious gaffe. Hillary just knows how things work on the Presidential world stage.

Personally I preferred Obama's answer of "Meet with them", but then again, I have never lived in the White House, and don't know the ramifications of that decision. Hillary is in a unique position of being very much like a former VP running for Pres. As a First Lady, she has instant "Job Experience".

As for the Castro/South Florida vote??
Sorry folks but the folks down here need to get over it. The current U.S./Cuban policy of the last 40-odd years is a complete and utter failure.

I understand how much Castro is disliked, but so far he has sat in power while Presidents have come and gone for 4 decades. He is doing just fine being alienated…His people are the only ones suffering. He is looking like the winner on this one.

I think it is time to open a dialog, and maybe in his last years either get him to "change position", "lighten up" or at least have gotten a foot in the door so that we don't have another 40 years of Castro Jr. I am not defending Castro… But the staus quo is a failure.

By the same token, Chavez and others like him are gaining popularity among the dirt poor peoples of Latin America. If we don't start paying more attention to being more friendly and supportive to our southern neighbors,we are going to end up with more and more of them hating us… That is a large population of enemies that we don't need.

Clinton has years and years of practice as a politician. And she answered this question just as I would expect a politician to answer. Aren't we tired of this same cookie-cutter rhetoric from the White House? Aren't we finally ready for a real CHANGE in approach to foreign policy? Obama is a breath of fresh air. I applaud his candor.

If you're stepping onto the world's stage as a solo act, you have to be willing to take a chance and take on the bad guys one on one. If you are afraid to because of the possibility of propaganda, you are not ready. Who creates propaganda anyway and why should an American president be afraid of it? Fight fire with fire I say! Take charge and control the message, or you're not ready to be president. Clinton is overly cautious and risk aversive to a fault. She's always hedging her bets whenever confronted with clear alternatives. If she's too afraid to confront these ugly little men on a level field then move aside and make way for somebody who will.

I think that Obama is absoutely spot on to say that he would be willing to meet with those leaders. By saying that he is indicating that he doesn't believe himself better than them and that he values everyone not just select people that an Administration deems to be "worthy".

It saddens me that communities, such as the Cubans in Florida, would drop their support of Obama for that answer. Don't alot of them still have families in Cuba? What is Obama's meeting with Castro could start things on their way to improving conditions in Cuba?

Hillary's answer proves that it would just be politics as usual if she is elected. Obama's answer indicates change and progress. Things haven't been working too well for awhile – I think I'll try the change thing.

Obama didn't have the opportunity to respond to Clinton's remarks regarding whether he would personally meet with them or not. When he said that he would meet with them, it could be that he was saying we (personally him) would meet with them, or it could be that he was saying we (collectively his administration) would meet with them. Give it a rest, people.

I think Obama handled the question perfectly. He is absolutely right that we should talk to anyone and everyone. It is the only solution to the diplomatic shortcomings of the U.S. We have spent too long practicing diplomacy from a safe distance, being sure to save face. Propaganda is an imaginary fear. With a strong leader like Obama, no effective propaganda will come out of the discussions. Hillary has only rehearsed answers. Obama is innovative and says what he means.

To the poster above me; Obama didn't say "hey, I love these guys." He simply said that he feels the US should talk to them and resume diplomacy. If people choose not to vote for him simply because of that answer — well, that's simply ignorant voters.

I'm glad the comments speak to the fact that people realize that this is petty issue.

Come on CNN. Why perpetuate this nonsense. Obama said he would meet with heads of state. Clinton said she would meet with heads of state.

Ofcourse you don't meet, just to meet. It is understood.

Give me a break.

It is really amazing how much control the Clinton campaign has over mainstream media. CNN might as well be called the Clinton News Network.

I would have to agree with the comments here that the difference between Clinton and Obama's answers are being exaggerated. Obama said that he would engage in diplomacy instead of ignoring the nations which are potentially a danger to us. Hillary then needed some way in which to say the same thing while still making Obama look bad, so she tries to depict him as careless and inexperienced. Obama didn't say that he wouldn't carefully consider the context in which his diplomatic meetings took place or that he wouldn't do careful research ahead of time–but he didn't say the he WOULD either, which left the door open for Hillary's answer.
OF COURSE Obama would be careful about how his meetings with foreign leaders are perceived, of course he would have advisors helping him with this, or even have Hillary helping him with this if she is the VP.
This exchange had no relevance to which candidate is better or more competent–it was just good to see all of them commit to not making diplomacy a bad word as it is now.

Can anybody else see the squirming that Hillary is doing..what a joke…She knows full well what Obama meant when he said he would meet with the enemies of the USA. She is just starting to realize that he is more qualified and so its time to start the personal attacks.

Can anybody honestly say that Obama would not be up to date before going into any meeting? Go look back at his record and tell me if he isnt generally the most knowledgable person in whatever room he is in. This is just Hillary starting to realize she isnt wanted.

I agree with Senator Obama's assertion regarding relations with "hostile" countries. Ignoring those with whom you have disagreements seems rather elementary. The notion that America somehow becomes weaker by stating its positions to the whole world, but not to the opposing party is ridiculous.

I think that it is really splitting hairs here. It has worked very well for the current administration, to simply brand these countries as the axis of evil as opposed to having some type of dialog. It really shows the calculating side of the Hillary campaign to distribute the memo though.If anything is evident it is that we need a change from this type of calculating politics. As americans we need a fresh start. In my opinion the question that all candidates missed the mark on was the question about raising minimum wage. More so than simply raising minimum wage to a livable wage, is to bring back real paying jobs to the middle class. Raising minmum is a necessary, but only a band aid. A minimum wage job was never intended to suppoort a family.

Great for Obama! What good as diplomatic relations done for us with these nations to date. If we (US) communicated with nations I think we would be better respected around the world. I much rather our president talk then send men and women into harms way.

The question was Will you meet not How will you go about meeting. Obama was spot on, Clinton as usual wanted to show how tough she is(remember the pro war speeches she made in the run up to the war). She plays politics at every opportunity. Remember the question about Liberalism, well she made it sound like a disease… Score one for conservatives who have succeded in villifying liberals. Again she was trying to prove something…Do you see a pattern here, She's always trying to position herself based on prevailing winds. Boy, the republicans will have a field day with her if she wins the nomination. I pity anyone who can't see through her act.

Obama spoke from the heart with a genuine answer — yes I will talk to everyone in an attempt to better our situation. Hilary's response was a very adept attempt to undermine Obama's credibility and make him appear naive. Obviously he will research and collect varying opinions before these meetings. The fact that her camp put out a response so quickly just clarifies that her entire comment was made only to take away from his. Certainly not to add value to the actual discussion.

Senator Obama's response was exactly what I wanted to hear! He cinched my vote with that answer and I know many other people who feel similarly. We need something new, and the only way to retake a leadership position in the world is to talk to people. We need somebody who is willing to try new things; a person who is willing to get the trust of the world back. I applaud his enthusiasm for true diplomacy, not the lip-speak we give it today.

CNN: stop bashing that answer! There were a lot more important things that happened in that debate to report on. Constantly commenting on how "naive" he is will bias your readers/viewers. Let people decide for themselves what type of an answer it was! I think it was a great answer – he is starting to remind me of JFK and I think he is exactly what this country needs.

Hi,
I think both Hillary and Obama did well. I happen to like both of them, However what i concider naive and un-intelligent enough is for Hillary to jump on Obamas comments and think that Obama is suggesting that he was just going to set up an official state meetings with those foreign presidents that were mentioned without first using all the state diplamatic apparatus to prepare the stage for such meetings if neccessary. Americans
are intelligent and they know who is trying to score a very cheap political point.

OLA FAKAY
Oakland, CA

I don't see a candidate on the Democrat side so far that I have any more faith in then any republican running so far . I think we are all in trouble as voters . Both parties are bought by big big money . Time we dump them both and start over building our government from scratch and new ideas .

Obama is just saying what he’s been told to say or what he’s read or studied. He is a neophyte who needs training and experience. Most all of his debate responses were based in jargon or hot button phrases. Senator Clinton is on a totally different level. She has a deep and broad understanding of the issues that come from real life experience. We’ve had one neophyte president-let’s not pick another. From the left or right –the job requires experience please!

Hahahaha, Sound Bites.

Truth of the matter, both will engage unfriendly nations, while the current administration barely speaks with friends.

If your looking for change, being green is not a bad thing, it brings new ideas, and a people agenda.

being red hot, may be signs of molding to the surface. (maintaining agenda)

Food for thought!

ROCK THE VOTE!

I think that anyone that see diffewrent colors of people and targets the Black people does not deserve to by running for president.

Didn't Obama say that he was "willing" to meet with them during his first year? That's not the same as saying "I definitely will."

I had no problem with his answer and I do think that the idea that not talking to these nations is punishment is ridiculous. At least if you have a dialogue, you have the potential to learn something about your enemies that may benefit you down the road.

All of these candidates should be forced to study Sun Tzu to avoid the pitfalls that this current administration has found. Machiavelli's notion that one should "keep your friends close, and your enemies closer" would also help.

I'm seeing less and less difference between Bush and Clinton. Same attitude – different hair style.

Cubans don't vote in our elections anyway – Americans do.

when i watched the debate it was pretty clear after everyone answered (and before the question was even asked for people that know anything about foriegn policy) that you lay groundwork before having a meeting between world leaders.

both answers were good and in reality ment the same thing. the only reason
clinton even make those distinctions was because she answered after obama and saw an opening to make obama look sophmoric.

I don't blame her for that in the debate, but to come out with this afterward is a stretch, and it looks low on Clinton's part for anyone who actually listened to the answers.

Go back to Bill's term and take a look at the photo of his Sec State Madeline Albright raising a toast with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il. We all know how that turned out as Il laughed his way to building nukes. Obama does not have the experience to understand how empowering it is for a dictator to be seen with the POTUS. The propaganda generated from such a meeting would set our country's cause back years. Say what you want about Bush, but his policies led to Libya's disarming and renouncing of nuclear weapons, and North Korea's shutdown of their nuclear plant…niether of which Bill Clinton was able to accomplish in his eight years.

What does it matter? Neither of these two will be elected President. Poll after poll confirm more Americans (52%) would NEVER vote for Hillary Clinton and Obama doesn't have the experience, depth, or national appeal regardless how many times Oprah wants to put him on her show.

John Edwards is the only viable option!

Hispanics won't vote for Obama just for saying he'd be WILLING to TALK to someone? Give me a freaking break. I'd talk to Hitler if I had the chance. What's the harm in that?

Hillary clearly just wanted to try to answer differently than her biggest competitor, and in doing so she ended up contradicting a statement she made earlier this year, as Obama's campaign pointed out.

There is absolutely no harm in going and speaking to the leader of a country that you want to try to resolve issues with. That's what leaders do.

If Hillary is trying to make a distinction here, then she's saying that she would be UNWILLING to speak with these leaders in her first year as president. Ruling out such a meeting this far in advance is not something a mature president ought to do.

"Direct Negotiations (with enemy states) are not a sign of weakness; they are a sign of leadership." "The Bush Administration's refusal to talk to anyone on the evil side, as some have called idealistic, I call it dangerously unrealistic." –Hillary Clinton, October 31, 2006 at the Cuoncil of Foreign Relations
Sounds like she agrees with Obama then, did she change her mind???

Hillary W. Clinton debate strategy: slam Bush while endorsing his policies. That takes a lot of nerve. Who would have thought the would-be heir to the current president would come from the Democratic party?

We've all seen how well the I'm-not-gonna-talk-to you approach has worked…one result is that Castro has been power since 1959 for that reason alone, and now Iran is more powerful than ever to boot. Obama's answer may not satisfy the anti-Castro demagogues playing dominos down on Calle Ocho, but fortunately, the rest of the country is ready to move on to a policy that actually WORKS.

To me, this shows whats wrong with politics. Obama answered the question, however, Hilary is trying ot exploit the fact that Obama did not explain all elements of his answer. Anyone who thinks Obama is just going to go meet with all these leaders even in siutations that will not benefit the U.S., as Clinton's camp suggests, is totally missing the point of Obama's answer. These political attacks are the reason why no one answers questions since if you do, you end up limiting yourself, and then get attacked for actually answering the question. Just another reason why I am not voting for Hilary.

I appreciate Obama's direct answer. I take any President's commitment to meet with other world leaders a commitment of the administration and not necessarily the President him/herself. Clinton is allowing her staff to muddle the words (remember, it runs in the family…definition of "is") of her nearest competitor and in the process confusing voters, not uniting them behind the dem’s cause. I side with Obama’s directness on this one.

Obama asnwered the question. Clinton gave the round around. How can we diplomatic with these countries, if are not willing to be the first's to show diplomacy.

Castro is near death…it's time to quit isolating Cuba and open up dialog.

Cuba is so poor they still use WW2-era tanks and weaponry.

Chavez was democratically elected and poses no threat.

Obama is right. Clinton basically just avoided the question by saying no I won't make any promises. Whereas Obama said YES without any reservation.

"Just because he said "yes" doesn't mean it would happen anyway"?!! That makes it okay??!! So we're finally admitting that we want a president who outright says one thing and doesn't do or follow through on it? Not I, thanks. Nor do I want one that makes a commitment to something without having any knowledge of the terms. That's just irresponsible.

Obama may have lost the vote of the older, very conservative Cubans in South Florida, who are not going to vote Democrat anyway, but he won the vote of the younger generation of Cubans, who like him, believe that the only way for diplomacy to work is by actually talking and that the embargo has not weakened the will of the Castro regime but rather caused mass exodus from the small country and poverty for millions of Cubans.
Additionally, this whole argument is really ridiculous. Obama did not say he would not exercise diplomacy first. He simply answered the question that was asked of him instead of dancing around the issue which is what any other politician would have done and did. This is what separates him from the rest and it is why he embodies the change we need so desperately in this country.

Clinton NEVER said she would NEVER talk to these "bad people." She simply stated she would find out what she was getting into before the meeting. A leader must think before she acts and speaks, and this is exactly what the current president fails to do. With this answer she showed that she has knowledge of how diplomacy works most effectively.

OBAMA ROCKED THE ANSWER! His 'yes' showed that he's willing to take command and meet problems head on. Hilary is just another 'Clinton Problem Dodger' who uses stupid catch phrases from her PR people to answer serious questions. All Hil does is complain and pass blame…what a joke if she becomes the nominee!

And another thing how do you know that that significant number of hispanics that dislike the two wouldnt vote for Obama because he would talk to them regarding our countries issues???? The majority of our foriegn issues are due to the fact that the US is all about take it or leave it…we dont like you and we dont care how you take it! those who are here are not going anywhere so I dont think they care what the US does with there homeland. As long as they make it possible for them to go back and foward with no problem i think that means more to them then our diplomatic talks. i see no problem with talking id take that over a bomb anyday

Everyone may love Obama, but can someone tell me what person over the age of 35 is going to vote for him? Would you vote him for President if you thought he had no real long time experience? (even he says he didn't vote for the war in Iraq because he wasn't in Office… come on that wasn't that long ago)

Plus, I'd rather send Bill to foreign countries than Obama… His answer was very poor. Who would just go to these countries who harbor terrorists and oppress their people with no diplomatic preparation… That would completely erase all purpose to the years of isolation that past presidents have given them.

If only Bill could run again as Hillary's VP… That'd be Sweet, Hill & Bill 08.

Listen Obama is all about unity. For where our country is today, nothing has worked. The old ways of politics needs to change and thats what Obama is about. Its tough to convince people of a different approach with countries we have a problem with. But its like come on people you say "Obama has no idea how diplomacy works" well tell me something the diplomatic ways we use in dealing with these diffilcut countries has that worked for the US? I think he wants to iron things out and let the people know that hey we bring you no harm, but if you harm us we will retaliate lets work to find a common ground to better both our country and yours. whats wrong with that?

Isn't Barack Obama simply reinforcing what the Iraq Study group suggested in terms of speaking with Iran and Syria etc. Of course intelligent people do not expect Obama to get on a private jet and go jet skiing with those leaders. Of course there would be preconditions and pre meeting advice. The Hillary Clinton campaign is acting like a kindergarten student who needs everything spoon fed to them. Obama simply advocated what helped the U.S win the Cold War – direct negotiations with the Soviet Union, simply reinforcing what it takes to help America advance its cause. How is a country going to solve problems without sending a strong message of intense diplomacy at the highest level of government. That is what Obama did. Hillary's response while not half bad, simply was around the bush and did not answer the question as directly as Obama did. Oh and did she not mention that dialogue wiht this countries are necessary couple of months ago.

Clinton campaign seems to be reaching a bit here. It is highly unlikely that Obama would speak with these leaders his first day in office, but do the research and preparations required to make the conversations successful in diplomacy efforts. This is exactly what the U.S. needs right now. Even if we don't agree with these foreign leaders, we can't continue to give them the cold shoulder like spoiled children.

WOW. Great catch. Clinton was covering her microphone. I guess no salacious tete-a-tete with Edwards this time around. Once bitten …

This shows that Clinton is just part of the system that has created the failed policies that have us mired in the middle east. Clearly she blew the answer and the only alternative to politics as usual is Obama

no obama did not mess up, if we did more diplomacy we would not have to lie to send our children into meat grinders and create more trouble as the current president has accomplished. We are in economic and diplomatic exchange with vietnam and think of the families and the over sixty thousand dead higher if you include non combat deaths that would have been avoided. I say we should meet with chaves and castro and the leaders of iran, north korea from a position of power as demonstrated by reagen when he and the soviet union came to the understanding of peace versus war. why slaughter the young of our countries and the innocent people caught between. as much as our president mentions god one could believe he is the greatest hjiadist of them all, and sacraficing our country in his quest. spend the money at home on the poor and needy, and bring our troops home and let them rebuild our country. may be good therapy after the lack of generalship and destruction they have caused over in iraq as " liberators" with orders to intensify suffering on iraqi males as reported last week in one marine unit. following orders like that is a disgrace to our nation, our morals and destroys the respect of others for us as well as of ourselves. Never sick a goon squad of soldiers on anyone unless you want to breed contempt for our armed forces and the innocent soldiers caught in between..

Obama's point stresses keeping open relations to difuse volatile situations, while Clinton's point is ambiguous in the best political fashion. Clinton promises "a vigorous diplomatic effort," which requires communication. Communication means an open relationship. Yet, she notes that "it is a mistake to commit the power and prestige of America's presidency years ahead." That is a statement that is completely noncommital and tells the public nothing of her future policy. So, who really hit the nail on the head?

It is quite petty of the Clinton campaign to twist Senator Obama's answers out of context and afford their own meaning to it. Asserting that Obama's answer was a gaffe along with distributing unsolicited memos on the subject in and of itself shows the extremely high level of anxiety flowing through the Clinton camp. Behavior like is is petty and childish and definitely is not winning Senator Clinton any points from the voters.

Thursday, June 28, 2007 7:49 a.m. EDT
Hillary Wants Talks With Iran

Democratic presidential contenders Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bill Richardson on Wednesday urged the Bush administration to continue a dialogue with Iran as the U.S. tries to thwart the country's pursuit of nuclear weapons.

In separate speeches, the candidates offered a broad indictment of President Bush's foreign policies, from the Iraq war to the use of unilateral force to relations with Iran and North Korea.

Clinton said the 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," she told the Center for a New American Security. "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."

Where was the memo from the Clinton camp when Pelosi met with the Syrian leader?

"…Senator Obama has committed to presidential-level meetings with some of the world’s worst dictators without precondition during his first year in office.”

Hillary is full of it! How could him meeting with these so called dictators and trying to open a dialogue be any worse than our history of backing dictators and creating citizens of those nations who are later hostile to the united states when the despot is deposed?

Why don't they just let the viewers determine who meant what about whatever. As I see it this type of behavior is a recipe to GIVE another election away. In short, GROW UP!

AFTER AMERICA WAKES UP TO THE
"YOU TUBE" JOKE OF ALL TIMES,
(DEBATES) I SUGGEST CNN GET A BRAND
NEW GROUP OF NEE-[NEWS ANCHORS AND
REPORTERS. CNN IS SLOWLY DYING OF
OLD AGE AND TIRED ROUTINES.
TOO MUCH IS TOO MUCH.
NEXT YOU WILL BE HIRING "BRYAN WILLIANS" AND "KAITIE COURIC."

Clinton answered the question like a real PRESIDENT….
Obama in the other hand lost the Cuban vote in South Florida
A significant number of the Hispanics do not like Chavez or Castro in USA will not vote
for someone with that stand.

BTW, is that Hillary covering up her microphone in the photo? Geez…

Obama is spot-on and answered the question in the context it was asked. Obama's approach is what Americans want, not Hillary's presidential envoy Bill. In these countries, change happens from the top down.

This is petty. Just because he said "yes" doesn't mean it would happen anyway. Before such meetings, a hoard of advisors would tell him if it was the right thing to do or not. Saying "yes" too quickly is a small gaffe, but not as bad as Hildog is making it out to be

There is a difference between noting that that Bush will not talk at all to "bad people." And specifying that you will not meet with those people within your first year in office before employing other diplomatic means first because you do not want it to be used as propaganda. This is what Hillary Clinton did, and this is what Obama was not Presidential enough to do or realize would be the intelligent thing to do. He obviously does not have a comprehensive understanding of how diplomacy and international relations works in complex situations. He should just own up to that.

That's really splitting hairs to say there is any difference. Both approaches are so much better than what we have had from the Bush administration. Maybe we could get some credibility back with other world leaders.