CNN

JD, Westminster, CO ... "Interesting. Obama thinks it was foolish to send troops to Iraq “without an exit strategy”. I wonder, did we have an exit strategy at the outset of any other war in history? Methinks not so much WWII."

You still trying to equate a defensive war of necessity with an offensive war of choice eh?

A war we WON vs Germany, Japan, and Italy in less time with a war we haven't yet won vs a third world country with 1/1000th the military we have?

Maybe the differences above – the main one being the fact that we're LOSING the battle amongst someone ELSE'S (civil) war after FOUR YEARS of trying might just be why we need an exit strategy?

Simple FACT: had we won the war by now – under Dubya's failed leadership of it – we wouldn't be talking about exit strategies now would we?

Methinks I should thank you for posting and thus allowing me to help you out with this one.

James Atlanta, GA ... "let’s not try to repeat his actions to the point that we reject doctrines that have served this country well before he was ever elected."

If ignoring countries we don't like "have served this country well before he was ever elected", then why is your president ABANDONING them by talking to these countries now?

Tell us wont you?

Good luck on your next post in response to mine!

Obama wasn't eligible to vote in 2002, war is not a game, they don't plan to get out from the war when they begin it plus it wasn't Hillary's job. Obama praised Hillary's question to Pentagon on Monday debate in front of millions, how come you changed mind so fast? Hillary wants to bring our soldiers home, she has the right to ask pentagon also Bush couldn't do anything for his job five years later, so Hillary is doing her job. You have no idea about how the Capital Hill and the world is working as naive Senator, that's why your answer was fearless. You realize your answer wasn't perfect, that's OK, it is not end of the world, so just accept it and move on instead of refutation. It will be your experience for next time. I wish Obama take a little time to listen, read and watch what professional comments about this time answer instead of none stop speaking . Hillary's gesture was exact as Commander in Chief. I like a little experience:) than a little naivete at White House.

I am from Venezuela and like Obama, but Hillary is right: if a president used the expression "willing to meet with you", Chavez would jump around saying "Yes!, This can't get better, now that I´m going to modify the constitution to be reelected til 2030 and beyond!"

Wouldn't he use the "willing to meet with you" expression for propaganda purposes? Come on!

Be careful Obama.

As an outsider looking in but also as a world citizen who will be affected by your election I agree with Taka from Nambia.

Hilliary Clinton is so much like George Bush: arrogant, unable to admit when she is wrong and divisive. What I viewed from her mannerisms at the debate as one who is not a listener, is calculating and totally focussed on becoming president rather than someone who is presenting a vision and a passion for her country and her role in the world. She will not, in my opinion, return respect to America.

It was amazing that your country reelected Bush/Cheney, and now with 300 million people the leading candidates are Clinton and Guliani and that so many of your politicians have been in Washington for 20, 30, 35 years. What common man experience do they bring to the table? What world experience?

If you want to be leaders in the world and stop the continuing bickering and your government's inability to do anything in the way of legislation you really do need to to look for new people!!...a potential of at least 24 years from the same two families..unbelievable.

Can anyone tell me why you don"t recognize Cuba but have a proson on its island? An honest question my friends and I have discussed and haven't been able to find an answer to.

Lynn, Vancouver, BC

Most everyone criticizes the US, thanks to our great democracy. Yet some of us fail to or don't want to see the potential harm or bad intentions, negative influences, other nations, e.g. Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, et al. may have against this great nation. Please realize the US is not the bad guys! "It cannot be we are damned if we do, damned if we don't" We need to remain united!

Obama is a breath of fresh air. He speaks to America's strengths, confidence and hope. America leads the world by projecting military force and diplomcay wisely. It leads by talking to all countries not just some; it leads by talking to them not just about them. Hillary is about status quo; feeding on fear. Since when did it become fashionable for the leader of the free to avoid speaking to world leaders for fear that they will use him or her for propaganda purposes?
Obama exudes youthfulness, energy and promise. Hi is the best example yet, that America's best days are ahead. By the way, have you noticed why Hillary keeps talking about what she has done? That is in the past. Obama keeps speaking about what he will do. That is the future...the 21st century and it is inspiring. When Obama gave that bold answer, he once and for all, proved to any America listening and the world that he is not part of the polluted Washington crowd; the crowd that has been bought and paid for by lobbyists. He broke out and set himself apart... That is leadership..well-reasoned leadership. America needs renewal, not the Clinton-Bush cabal that represents stasis rather than progress. And what is this nonsense about experience Hillary and her supporters keep spouting. Being a wife of a President may give one the advantage of knowing where all the rooms and washrooms are located in the White House, it does not make one qualified to be President. Plus, the Washington experience she has acquired as a Senator is the wrong kind of experience America needs right now. Do you want proof, look at the answer she gave when asked how she would deal with difficult world leaders...That answer reflects exactly what Bush and Cheney have been doing. That is not change...it is status quo. Hillary talks a good talk but she is too corrupted by the beltway. Open your eyes America. Obama is your best chance for the future.

Considering that population, as well as the leaders, of the countries mentioned in that question consider the US & it's leaders complete idiots.. the likelyhood of any meeting between them being used as satirical fodder is 99.999999% possible.

Chavez had the testicular fortitude to call bush the devil in the UN, you honestly think he'd have an issue with editing audio/video clips to further his agenda? Be serious.

Cuba could care less about any american president that isn't coming to the table specifically intending to drop the embargo.

Need I go into Iran & North Korea? Both Ahmadinejad & Kim Jong-Il regularly use the Us as comedic fodder.

The willingless of the american population to support the newest fad & jump unto the newest trend is mindboggling. As someone who could previously could care less about US politics, I find this whole fascination with Obama amusing. I'll give Obama the credit he deserves but jeez people, it's not the 2nd coming.

I wouldn't want a newly apprenticed mechanic messing with the vehicle I trust with my safety. Look what you're proposing to do with your government!!

From the editor of the Nation, Katrina vanden Heuvel:

Witness how far Clinton's nuanced experience got her when confronted with the 2002 Iraq war resolution.

David [Corn] may well be right that Obama's opponents will try to exploit his response. But from a foreign policy point of view was Obama's response so wrong and Clinton's so right? Her husband's administration generally followed Hillary's approach; during his two terms President Clinton did not meet with Fidel Castro or with Hugo Chavez or with the leaders of Iran, Syria, and North Korea –while generally pursuing a policy of trying to isolate these countries. But what did the Clinton approach actually accomplish? The respective regimes of Castro in Cuba and Chavez in Venezuela have only grown stronger, and more influential in Latin America. Although Syria was forced to withdraw its military forces from Lebanon last year, the regime of Bashar Assad is as firmly entrenched in power as was his father's. And in spite of the odious politics and qualities of Ahmadinejad, Iran carries more weight in the Middle East than it did doing the early 1990s while American power and standing has declined considerably.

Indeed, both Clinton and Bush may have missed a historic opportunity to open a new chapter with Iran when reformer Mohamed Khatemi was elected in 1997. Had President Clinton taken the bold step Obama suggested and had met without precondition with President Khatemi in 1998 or '99 instead of pursuing sanctions, might not the democratic reformers be in power in Iran? Might we not have a healthy and growing trading relationship with an economically reformed Iran? Might Iran have capped its nuclear program and cooperated with us in managing regional relations including the peaceful downfall of Saddam Hussein? We do not know because the foreign policy sophisticates thought it was too politically risky for President Clinton to make such a bold move.

Above all, foreign policy is a matter of simultaneously projecting American confidence and American humility. In signaling that he was willing to meet with the leaders of these countries, Obama was signaling that the United States has the confidence in its values to meet with anyone. But he also signaled a certain humility that reflects the understanding that the next president must reach out to the rest of the world and not merely issue conditions from the White House and threaten military force if it does not get its way.

Enough of Bush -Clinton – Bush! Vote Obama in 2008 for Bold, new leadership!

PLEASE: Ask NFL to Do More: Suspend Vick Without Pay Following Michael Vick’s indictment, the NFL has ordered Vick not to come to training camp this year. Please urge the NFL to suspend Vick without pay now. Click here and sign this petition: http://getactive.peta.org/campaign/afalcons_vick_2

I agree with Senator Obama. Why shouldn't we be "willing" to meet with these leaders? It extends an olive branch and opens the course for dialogue. Bush's stand-offish position is what is making things worse for America's reputation as w world leader. I applaud Sen. Obama for standing up to say he is willing to talk. If you ask me, his willingness to meet personally with these world leaders (whether we want them to be or not) rather than sending someone else to do it in his place speaks a lot to his experience and knowledge of the way politics (and the world) works.

As for Ms. Albright's comments and support of Sen. Clinton, she sort of has to agree doesn't she? I mean Bill Clinton appointed her. Don't get me wrong, I have tremendous respect for the woman but I think she's wrong on this one.

Hillary may be smart, educated and experienced in the ways of the White House, but she's also arrogant and self-centered. Despite her best efforts to look like a caring, compassionate person, deep down I believe she's more interested in feeding her ego than the best interests of our country.

As Obama supporter I was sad to see that this debate did express his lack of experience. However, it is his political innocence that makes him my favorite candidate in this upcoming election.

He is not a usual politician that has a separate agenda from what he campaigns. I feel that he truly cares about change for this nation in the right direction.

I am tired of the private sector controlling our politicians. My biggest gripe with Hillary is that she is such a big supporter of big business.

Politicians say the economy is better in America, but better for whom? Sure its great for a CEO, who can show great record breaking numbers on a 10-k because he has been able to cut cost (outsourcing, tax cuts).

This country needs a little bit of inexperience. Key words being "a little bit." I don’t know how we elected a C student who only has failing business ventures twice. Our ignorance and stubbornness to vote across party lines has truly taken its toll on this nation.

For once I hope that we can really educate ourselves and make the best decision for the future.

I have to set the record straight here since some people totally misunderstood the question.

Please go back to the question and the example cited of Sadat going to Israel. Read Sadat’s trip of 1977 and also see what preparations were made prior to the trip.

Low-level diplomacy was not issue here; some diplomatic works were already done before Sadat made his bold move.

The question was; after all the low and high level diplomatic negotiation were completed by the underlines at State Department, would the future President be willing to meet any of our enemies without a pre-condition as Sadat did, when he visited Israel?

Obama’s answer was exactly in line with the question.
It looked like Hillary didn’t even know about Sadat’s move and the role played by President Jimmy in the low and high level diplomacy to prepare for Sadat’s move.

Obama was willing to meet with any of our enemies once the groundwork was done like Sadat did.

This was not a question of preliminary diplomatic negotiations; that would have been taken care of as it was in the Sadat case, it was about our future president's willingness to do as Sadat, Reagan, Nixon, and Kennedy did.

So far Obama is the only candidate willing to show that kind of bold leadership exemplified by Reagan, Kennedy, and Sadat.

If Hillary couldn’t understand that the question assumed that high and low-level diplomacy have been done, then we can’t really be able to help her.

No wonder she voted to authorized the war and thought that she was sending Bush to the UN. Too bad – We want sharp minds in 2008, not people that could not understand a simple question like or issue like Sadat’s trip to Israel on November 19, 1977. Sadat was the first Arab leader to officially visit Israel when he met with Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, and spoke before the Knesset in Jerusalem

Some people are shouting about Hillary’s experience and this is one prime example that her type of experience is useless to the nation at this time.

Yes. We cannot just ignore the experience question; the truth is that Hillary is running on experience and so far she has not proven that to the American public.

Hillary told us that she is running on experience so we must call her out on her ignorance of basic procedures like this.

No wonder she thought that voting to authorize the war was not actually giving Bush the power to invade, but rather the power to go to the United Nations.

Hillary does not understand that no bilateral presidential meeting/summit has ever taken place without a low and high level diplomatic groundwork. That failure to understand a simple foriegn policy issue as a presidential summit makes her unqualified to be our commander-in-chief in 2009.

She might one day give out Confidential National Security information and thought that it was just a weather tip.

Hillary has MUCH more experience than Obama...

* White water experience
* FBI Files experience
* Supporting womens rights (as long as they're not named Paula, Monica, Jaunita, etc)
* Bed & Breakfast experience (selling nights in the Lincoln Bedroom)
* Stealing White House furniture experience
* Failed Universal Healthcare experience

I'm not so sure the American people want Hillary's type of experience!

Not exactly a good question. There were 5 parts to the question as stated by CNN they pertained to a.) the President b.) sitting down c.) specific countries d.) the first term e.) bridging divisions. What exactly were people saying yes and/or no to? All or parts of the question.

Obama did not say give in or agree. I believe he suggested engagement.

The best answer for me would have been: I would meet if a.) it was a priority and b.) was in America's interests and the interests of the people of the country to be engaged c.) and the prospects of realistic gains for BOTH sides were high at the given time.

One cannot sit down to discuss with preconditions if one is trying to steer away from an ethnocentric approach to foreign policy, and unless you have no view of the engaging party as an equal nation. One cannot forcefeed foreign policy down another country's collective throat.

The interviewer did not ask who would possibly set the pre-conditions. That would have been interesting.

I do support Obama from across the Atlantic but on balance Hilary Clinton's answer was better as I don't think it wise to answer all 5 of the subquestions with a yes. I only hope she wasn't answering all the subquestions with a no. However, Obama spoke his mind not a line from Political Campaigning 101. At least Obama had a "nuanced and sophisticated understanding" of how this debated issue within the campaign has lead to "a nice fabricated controversy". I admire Obama for his optimism and his candour. I need to see a leader who can say I will maintain my position and composure whilst searching for the meaning and the positives in my rival's argument. We don't need to see the desparation retorts. Nothing more ingenuine than a President who has an answer for everything. Leave that to God.

Obama should leave the Iraq issue alone. It's a waste of time pointing out where people have been idealogically and politically. Rather focus on where they are now. For the record most people deceived by faulty
"intelligence" would have made the same decision. His comment either infers gullibility or questionable decision making, neither of which Hilary is guilty of. Best to leave it.

I and the rest of the world are hoping for some sense to come out of the US of A and if going forward means employing old school smear tactics then nothing is going to change.

Probably better to have a sophomoric teenage approach to listening with no agenda than adopting a PhD-ish self-righteous disposition which invariably leads to a desire to LECTURE. There is nothing complicated about International Diplomacy. It is standard. The difference between America's and Iran's handbooks on protocols for DIPLOMACY is just the font size and arabic. Would anyone dispute GBW's latest sit-down with Putin was unorthodox? The diplomacy that some want to see is the same calculated, cautious, conservative, claptrap which makes assumptions of a one-size fits all approach to dealing with a nation. The American approach at best gives one a sense of being "handled". America needs new approaches.

If CNN were really forward-thinking they would conduct a poll to find out exactly who the rest of the world wants to see in the White House. Obviously any election is sacred and sovereign but it might give the American public a better idea of what kind of politics the world is hoping for.

I must be one of those "touchy-feely" foreigners but no-one wants to destroy America. It's just that no-one wants their way of lives to be changed from without . . . . me included.

Does the American public have enough mental energy to keep track of the Presidential race and the actual President. I mean it's hard enough following two soaps at the same time . . .

Is it just me or did Hillary Clinton NOT admit she made a mistake in her vote or would she NOT do it again knowing what she knows now(even though she was fooled by faulty info). John Edwards did. Bill Clinton also said he supported the war last year. Do we really want a change or what? I will take intelligence and common sense over politics anyday. We need our respect back in the world, I vote Obama. Second Edwards.

I agree with Senator Barack Obama's initial answer to the question of whether as president he would meet with Chavez or Castro. To me and other voters this response represents one of confidence, strength and resolve and a firm belief in the absolute necessity for the U.S. to turn around its damaged world image and put us firmly on a path of peaceful human-rights based negotiations with foreign nations.

I also agree with Sen. Obama that Sen. Clinton's charges that his answer was irresponsible is a politically based maneuver to fabricate a controversy to make up for her own past regrets in voting to go to war with Iraq.

I know that more voters than myself would have much more faith in an American president who would be willing to listen first to a foreign leader, especially if no hostilities have been initiated, and move negotiations forward to a peaceful resolution.

As a nation it would not be in our best interests to elect a president who would display the impression of arrogance and say it's possible to discern hidden agendas.

We have had that already – nearly 8 years of a presidency that has created an incredible climate of fear and mistrust here and abroad. We need new leadership.

We need a president who can build relationships with all foreign nations and who can resolutely promote an agenda of peace and defend basic human rights regardless of the public or hidden agendas of other world leaders.

Diplomacy solved Darfur. Talking also stopped the Rwanda genocide. Meetings halted the war in Bosnia. I also think that round table talks at the UN saved 2 million people from murder and starvation in Cambodia, halting Pol Pot.

Oh wait, I got that backwards. Diplomacy without teeth is just a lot of hot air. It makes us feel good that we’re trying sooo hard. But while talks drag on…people simply die.

Iran…is problematic. A majority of the younger urban population is pro-US to an extent, while diplomatically we have to deal with older, more anti-Western poloticians and religious leaders. This is still the same country that 20 years ago sent childern to walk across landmine fields to clear the explosives. And sent ’soldiers’ armed with relic rifles and pitchforks to attack Iraqi tanks! Iran is a non-Arab, minority Shia country in a region dominated by Arab Sunni muslims. It wants more power, ie leverage. Would Iran use a nuke? Could we risk them controlling the Middle East, the single most important center of economic growth in the world (yes, oil sadly)?

Let's actually look at reality. Talking is fine but at some point you better be willing to back it up or you look like the boy that cried wolf.

There is more going on here than just political posturing on both sides. Hillary Clinton knows that Barack Obama is the most potent threat to her march to the Democratic presidential nomination. She tried to use this opportunity to exploit doubt about Obama's experience. She clearly feels that she is stronger in that regard. But Obama showed that he can take a hit and give it right back. That is what is important. He responded forcefully and articulately.

I think Hillary is just trying to draw attention to Obama's perceived weakness as a relative newcomer on the national scene. But he is an extremely intelligent, thoughtful and articulate man. He may not be quite ready yet, but he is a force to be reckoned with and that is the message he sent to Hillary with his strong response.

I like the fact that Hillary isn't going to have an easy road to the nomination. That is as it should be. We do have a choice here and it will be interesting to see what the Democratic voters decide. Do we choose Hillary Clinton, with her impressive resume and years of experience in the White House, or do we opt for a new direction and take a chance on the new guy, someone with fresh ideas, unfettered with baggage from the past and offering new leadership.

I will be watching with interest to see how this all plays out. As a lifelong Democrat, I think that our party is fortunate to have such a choice between two highly qualified and worthy candidates.

Why not with Bin?
If you can talk with Iran who threaten us (The USA) to harm its interest world wide, and Venezuela leader who call our(May be Obama too) president devil why not go directly and have a peace deal with Osama Bin laden?. I am Indian and green card holder, My personal believe was that American's president election are American affair, but when the life of millions of people involved its no longer remain an American issue. Mr. Obama is committing what public want to hear, but under present circumstances you have to fight the war.

The REAL difference here is that between a PhD and a Sophmoric, teenage response to complicated International Diplomacy.
I suspect most of us understand the dangers inherent in ON-THE-JOB-TRAINING
of a President...

Wait a minute. We are overlooking yet another false-hood being stated by the candidates. I recall an article on this website stating that the North Koreans are looking to hold talks with the US and other countries. Also Iran is moving in that direction. The W administration is not slamming the door on them.

Where is Barack and Bilary getting their information from?

To all of you "touchy-feely" folks that want to see us on a level diplomatic playing field with the likes of North Korea, Syria, Iran and others led by people who want to destroy us, I would respectfully suggest that you are not being realistic in your assessment of foreign affairs.

These are totalitarian states who do not have repect for the international community. Remember how much good it did for Neville Chamberlain to talk to Germany in the 30's.

Unless the Iranian leader takes back his comments of "wiping Israel off of the face of the earth" or end his nuclear proliferation program, I would not entertain any talks with such individuals like him, Castro or the left-wing nutcase Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.

Hillary is so much more presidential than the baby faced Obama.It is so easy to hide behind an Iraq vote while he himself did not had to make that choice. Going into Iraq was not the problem, having people as Paul Bremer was. Presidents do not meet just anyone, their diplomatic core can. But Maybe Obama has the stomach to shake hands with Mugabe or Omar al-Bashir, or are African mass murderers too much for him?

What I find amazing is that Senator Obama has only one thing to say about Senator Clinton- her vote to authorize the war. In each of his retorts to Clinton that is the first thing out of his mouth. I think a Clinton/Obama ticket is the best for this country at this time. Can't we all get along.

I think it is important to have dialog with each nation. I would have to agree with Obama. The thought that we shouldn't discuss problems with rogue states is ludicris, because the world is becoming increasingly more globalized I feel discussions with Every Nation is important..... Beside it is just an "Open Door Policy" hmm what a concept.

Hillary's stance is that of a pouty little girl who refuses to talk to someone because they don't agree with her. She's telling the world "we're not going to talk to Iran because they've been bad boys and they need to sit in the corner and think about what they've done." How mature is that. The Bush administration is either afraid to confront leaders with drastically different views, or else wants to show that we're too much "better" than these "inferior" other countries to acknowledge they exist. Its like the Brits in India all over again. Thank God Obama sees through that, and can acknowledge that acting like kindergarteners is an unacceptable move for the most influential country in the world. Hillary may have more experience in the political arena but Obama, having grown up with foreign family members and spent significant time living outside of the US, has a perspective on international affairs that is significantly superior to Hillary's and is exactly what our country needs in this expansive time of globalization and international conflict.

I think in disingenuous of the Clinton campaign to make much ado about this issue. I watched the 'debate' and thought that Obama simply left off what is obvious to most intelligent Americans – that is, of COURSE he'll only talk to those countries after the diplomatic efforts have first taken place, but, he'll make sure it'll take place within the first year! I believe that goes without saying and for Sen. Clinton's campaign to seize on the obvious, it appears to this voter that they're getting worried about Obama's numbers. Truly, I was on the fence between both of these great Americans, but one more similar snideful incident by the Clinton's will push me over to Obama come 2008!!!

As others have pointed out, Sen. Obama didn't promise to meet with these "bad leaders." He said he'd be willing to do so - and that shows an openness that's been sadly lacking in our approach to foreign relations. Eleanor Roosevelt once said, "We have to face the fact that either all of us are going to die together or we are going to learn to live together — and if we are to live together, we have to talk." Sen. Obama understands that; Sen. Clinton clearly does not.

Why is everyone focusing on the word "willing"? We all know they are BOTH willing to meet with these leaders unlike the Bush Administration.

The question focuses on the words "the first year" NOT the first term.

The Bush Administration has will be leaving a MESS to clean up for anyone who takes office.

I know I wouldn't want MY PRESIDENT wasting time with dictators in HER first year. We've got major problems on our hands and I don't believe our president should be flying anywhere except the VA hospitals to see our wounded soldiers to find out thier needs, New Orleans, Hospitals in general to fix healthcare and the Capitol Builing to pass through legislation overturning the mess that was made for the past eight years.

My vote is for Hillary!

I did not see the debate but I somehow doubt Obama "promised to meet" with all the worlds most problematic leaders without any sort of prior dialogue or arrangement. Or maybe he did say "yeah, I'm going on an axis of evil tour- who wants to come? Could you call Korea and let them I'll be there Thursday and let Iran know they're slated for next Monday."!!?? And why do we send our president to go make small talk on the friends tour all the time? We know what most or our allies are going to do which is be cordial and agree with us until things get sticky and they jump ship while their general populace snicker about what bullies and pigs we are. Whatever. The people we need to be concerned with are the ones who are talking about nukes and the United States in the same sentence.

But what's wrong with letting some of the people we don’t see eye to eye with know that we are interested in just sitting down and talking with them and are willing to do so without forcing a hundred and one conditions on the meeting? Are we seriously afraid of what some of these nut job leaders will proclaim to the world if our president did such a thing? At least we can say, and the world can see that we tried and to be realistic that’s probably all you will be able to do with some of the problem leaders no matter how many preconditions you put out there. The world will see us care enough to send our number one representative and who could fault us for that?

Or maybe we should keep up with the status quo since it seems to be working out so marvelously. "We don't like you and you don’t like us so screw you and the horse you rode in on until you agree to do what we say. Just send me an email when you change your mind and are ready to apologize." So far, so good. I don’t really know much about Obama and typically think republican but to hear a more optimistic approach to our foreign policy problems is refreshing. What does Clinton expect to achieve with more of the same? Her packaged, "this is how we do it" answers are pretty stale and I also get the feeling she is more interested in fulfilling personal ambition that the good of the country, unlike Obama. Personally, I would never vote for a Clinton after watching Bill Clinton look straight into the camera and lie to all the citizens he represented. I don’t trust either one of them.

Sure Obama's naive: His earlier "first responders" comment -wow!;Interjecting the emotional, devisive "sex ed in kindergarten issue" into the campaign when it was not even a fourth rate thought to most voters; now, his "jimmy carter – pollyanna" approach to diplomacy. Again, wow! Obama's vision for america is Illinois "writ large". As an Illinois citizen, I find that down right scary. If he's elected, America's loss will be Illinois' gain.

As a Mexican and a Latin American, I sympathize and am totally in favor of Sen. Obama's willingness to speak to leaders of other countries, even if their policies are not in line with the one dictated by the White House. Other arrogant and ignorant U.S. Presidents, in refusing to negotiate directly with leaders of countries that they were wreaking havoc in. I bet nobody in the U.S. remembers how Reagan, almost single-handedly, organized and poked, using Casey's CIA, the 1980's fratricidal war in Nicaragua, only with the purpose of using that nation as an ideological battlefield against the Soviets, without caring in the least for the populations, who were traumatized and starving. When Sandinista Daniel Ortega asked to negotiate directly with Reagan he refused, only prolonging the suffering of all those human beings. 30,000 lives were lost in that war. Besides, How does Clinton know that Chavez is a dictator? Because he gives away food and bricks to the poor? or because he has refused to get in line with the U.S.-led World Bank and IMF's strategies that instead of helping our countries, deeply damage our economies?
I felt for Clinton at the time of the scandal caused by her husband AND by the Republicans. Now I see that she put up with that due to her greed for power.
If only U.S. people were prepared for a Black president.

Thank you so much,
María Soledad Cervantes-Ramírez

The actual question was: would you meet with these world leaders, during your first year as president, without precondition?

Look at this way: say the CEOs of two competing corporations wanted to sit down and figure out a way to put aside their differences and cooperate on something. Would the CEOs have a face to face meeting to work out an arrangement? Sure. But only after extensive negotiations conducted by their various representatives. Otherwise you'd have two powerful people sitting there talking without an agenda, without, as Clinton said, "a way forward." That's not how things get done.

Hillary Clinton has a point and a political perspective backed by shere experience. I'm an Army Officer and like most Soldiers, am following these debates with an open mind however, the question we must ask is can our nation afford a president that lacks the experience and comprehension of military strategies along with diplomatic resolutions? I think it speaks for itself. Hillary Clinton's agenda is convinving more citizens and service members that if the shoe fits, she WILL wear it!

From Outside:
Most comments seem to start in the wrong direction, which just leaves the analysis in the wrong stand. even the question was pointing the other way.
There are NO ENEMIES out there TRYING TO GET YOU people. There are countries, and other people trying to do what they think is best for them.
So, starting with talking to our ENEMIES makes no sense. You talk to people about common aspects in which you may disagree and come to an understanding. AMERICA does not want free trade agreements to HELP others, it wants them for their benefit. Others must watch out for their interests and speak against them. But, there must be common ground somewhere.
FOr those of you who don't know or remember, Bill Clinton spoke with Chavez about oil prices and came to a price band ($20-30 per barrel). Bush did not speak to anybody and prices rockected, benefits to those in power of oil companies (happen to be the same as in office in "AMERICA").
So, the question is to be willing to talk on common issues. Not on issues like whether I have or you free press (what a fantasy, it just doesn't exists). That is internal problems we all have. I don't think AMERICA is ready to talk, either one is assuming thay will be talking to inferiors, which is definetely no WAY to start a conversation.

As much as Hillary questions Barrack's response, where does she stand on Nancy Pelosi's unauthorized visit to Syria? That trip seemed to get brushed under pretty quickly by the Dems.

Obama’s “nativity” is exactly what America needs.

Agreed. Does the current state of America need further experience and expertise of Washington lifers? Making the same tactical, political decisions that have been made for the last 40 years?

I think Senator Obama is off mark when he criticizes Sen Clinton for asking for exit strategy five years later. Greatness lies in acknowledging mistake and making amends. Mrs. Clinton has repeatedly said that her decision was based on the best made available to senators when congress first authorized war. She has said that had she had the insight that she has now, she would not have voted yes first time. The answer is honest and perfect. Spin doctors wish to twist the facts and want to make her look bad. Actually she has shown better moral fiber when she does not vacillate.
On the contrary Sen. Obama wants to have it both ways. Vote No for war but yes for funding. In my profession such stance is a clinical disorder called split personality.
Sen. Obama came across as naive when he answered he would meet with dictators. Mrs. Clinton appeared more nuanced and mature. Sen. Obama should grow up. He is acting like a spoiled pampered kid.

The assertion of "sophistication" on HRC's comments and "naivete" on BO belies what needs to be done.
HRC's comments indicates that she is generally more concerned about how the world perceives the US and its actions, rather than solely what is the right and best thing to do. If appearance and self-interest rather than substance are truly what drives us, then we deserve the future that our President and government have provided us. BO may be naive, but the reality is that NO MATTER WHAT we are engaged in a war with which the "other side" has no reason to consistently cooperate. At least by talking you should BE ABLE TO FIGURE OUT the depths of human nature with which you deal.

You must be "willing" to meet with anyone. It is the arrogance seemingly espoused by Clinton that has America where it is today. You meet, discuss, and then, there may or may not be changes, but positive communication should always the first step to solving recognized problems.

Diplomacy solved Darfur. Talking also stopped the Rwanda genocide. Meetings halted the war in Bosnia. I also think that round table talks at the UN saved 2 million people from murder and starvation in Cambodia, halting Pol Pot.

Oh wait, I got that backwards. Diplomacy without teeth is just a lot of hot air. It makes us feel good that we're trying sooo hard. But while talks drag on...people simply die.

If anything, the 'peace' party of US Democrats and France ought to be ashamed that we've done precious little to actually halt so many human atrocities. Being a little 'r' republican, I can't say that the republican party has done much better, but they often don't claim to care so much about those issues.

As to 'talking' with our enemies...North Korea isn't going to go nuts with a nuclear bomb. All they want is food and energy without losing face. In 15 years the country will be re-united, and have a east/west germany unification feel.
Iran...is problematic. A majority of the younger urban population is pro-US to an extent, while diplomatically we have to deal with older, more anti-Western poloticians and religious leaders. This is still the same country that 20 years ago sent childern to walk across landmine fields to clear it. And sent 'soldiers' armed with relic rifles and pitchforks to attack Iraqi tanks. Iran is a non-Arab, minority Shia country in a region dominated by Arab Sunni muslims. It wants more power, ie leverage. Would Iran use a nuke? Could we risk them controlling the Middle East, the single most important center of economic growth in the world (yes, oil sadly)?

So do we talk to them? Everything must be on the table. However, rule out an Israeli style attack on their facilities and they will not stop their production, its that simple. Talking is great but don't show your cards.

I am not a Democrat, but I really hope Edwards or Obama takes the vote. I really don't like the clintons.

On another note... Did anyone see the bill Bush put through where he can call off a presidential election if our country is under terrorist attack. Thus enabling him to remain in office if we are attacked next year?

Hillary was guilty of the same kind of typically political double talk we've had far too much of. She tries to spin her way out of being nothing more than a politician, but Obama speaks up and gives a square answer to the question. Obama is right on in questioning Hillary's record, which did give Bush a blank check. She's the one who used the FBI to spy on her political enemies and her husband's administration was not free from civil rights abuses, either. Obama is willing to state ideas and is a fresh face. I am interested in what he's said. Hillary's record is questionable, because she represents the same sort of tongue twisting and two stepping we've had far to much of. As far as bombs, Kucinich has bombed her six ways to sunday and her response is not to deal with his issues, but to conspire to exclude his truthful analyses when she thinks no one is listening.

If I were to pick a Dem candidate right now, it would be Joe Biden. I know he has a reputation for being a blowhard, but at least most of what he says is "no spin."

Hillary and Obama are both trying so hard to get elected, that they are trying to be everything to everybody and you can't believe a word they say.

Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.

Obama nailed the question.

The Bush administration has vilified America in the eyes of too many nations with this president's imperialist and dictatorial approach to domestic and foreign affairs. I say, get out there and communicate with the world, lest we become isolated.

Hillary out-classed you on this one, Barack. You're reaction shows you agree.
I still won't vote for such a liberal, tax-happy candidate such as Hillary.
Never in a million years!

Presidents are not middle school kids who would not talk to other people when they're mad at them. These types of problems need to be discussed and solved instead of letting the problem stay there by not talking. Obama is right in taking a stand to talk and Clinton is right in knowing the intentions. I don't think that Obama would go to a meeting without knowing the reason why it's held and that should've been understood instead of making it a big issue

OBAMA MUST GET OVER THE WHOLE VOTING TO SEND TROOPS TO IRAQ THING, HE USES THIS LINE FOR ANYTHING SEN. CLINTON SAYS. I WOULD SUGGEST TO HIM TO START WORRYING ABOUT THE PICTUER IN THE FUTUER RATHER THAN THE PAINTING IN THE PAST. SEN. CLINTON UNLIKE OBAMA, DEFENDS HERSELF FROM HER OPPONENTS ON A MORE POLITICAL STATAGIE, LIKE TOUCHING ON ISSUES THAT THE OPPONENTS TALKS ABOUT ON HAND, RATHER THAN THE DECISONS THEY TOOK IN THE PAST. WHATS IS OBAMAS EXIT STRATAGIE WHEN THE CUBAN MILLITARY KIDNAPS HIM FOR GOING INTO CUBA WITH NO PRE CONDITIONS?

GO HILLARY

Obama's "nativity" is exactly what America needs. The Clinton's have been in public office too long, it's time for change. America's founding fathers did not intend for one FAMILY after another to continuously rule (no matter how much experience they may have).

Look at the mess the BUSH family has gotten American into. Obama thus far is about the only one that breaths new life into American Politics as usual.

Those who wish to see a WOMAN in office are ill served by that notion. Had the woman been someone new (not from a former ruling FAMILY) I would agree because CHANGE is what's needed if America is to survive.

Finally, not talking to so called enemy countries is what got America into the mess in the Middle East. I believe the Middle East crisis could have been avoided if only American Politicians had the WILL to fight special interest groups and not allow them to dictate American Foreign Policy.

Truth be told AMERICA will need about 100 Obama's to sort out the mess she's in.

I just get tired of the Obama camp always making reference to Senator Clinton authorised the invasion of Iraq when Mr Obama did something naive and inexperience. Senator Clinton was given misleading information and that lied to her decision to authorise the war. On the other hand, Mr Obama was not even in the Senate at that time, he could claim whatever he wants to as hide sight is 20/20. I think he will be more a man if he admits that he is inexperienced and made naive comment that may jeopardise at a presidental level and as a result to our country, during the recent debate. Mr Obama you are just simply not ready to lead our country. You are saying what your advicers telling you too and are equally calculated as other politicians you fire at.

This is a "pah tay toe"/"pah tah toe" debate. The question was, would the candidates BE WILLING to meet WITHOUT PRECONDITION with leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, or North Korea.

Obama's answer was the equivalent of "I would, and this is why ..." while HRC's answer was the equivalent of "I won't promise to and this is why..."

So, in point of fact, HRC didn't answer the question, she wasn't asked if she'd PROMISE to, but if she was WILLING to meet.

HRC' concerns are valid, but in mentioning them, she was dancing around the question.

Edwards, having the opportunity to hear both Obama's and HRC's prior answers, was able to give a more complete answer; the equivalent of "Yes, but with these considerations ...".

At the end of the day, a President is not just the Neighbor-in-Chief, so meeting with anyone with no agenda is a waste of time. Presidents have better things to do than go talking over the fence to the country next door. That's what Ambassadors are for.

HRC's concerns remain valid, but they are easily addressed; there is no reason meaningful and productive meetings with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, or North Korea could not be arranged.

sean s.

HILLARY IS RIGHT, YOU DO NOT DIVE IN A POND OF WATER WITHOUT KNOWING HOW DEEP IT IS.OBAMA LACKS EXPERINCE PEROID.

I think lack of experience in this case is an advantage. Because if Obama is elected his judgments don't come from same old rusty standardized methods but from pure Logic super imposed over expert advice from the President's Panel of Political Advisors based on current and changing world political landscape.

OBAMA is ready to take action, get in there, roll up his sleeves and fix what's wrong with America today.

Clinton is ready to keep us isolated and frightened.. her answer for this question proves she's no different than what we have now with BushCo.

OBAMA was right on!!! He's making a brave stand and trying to make this nation great... as it once was!!

If we want the World to change their outlook on America from the way it is now, we need a change in leadership. I am talking about going with New School. It means not only a new vigor and a new way of running the Presidential office of the most influential nation, but also a total change in world perception about US diplomacy with rest of the world.

This is trite, petty, and a fine example of how the art of politics can take the place of common sense. I'm sorry–did Barack Obama sign something to commit himself as would-be president to meet with these people? Is Hillary Clinton suggesting that a candidate can't or won't act contrary to pre-election statements if current conditions warrant it after election? Does she honestly believe that we find sincerity in her statement? Shoot–I think we've all seen candidates-turned-elected officials change positions for far less justified reasons.
This is ridiculous that this argument should be published. I won't offer full support to either side, but I enjoyed Barack Obama's response in which he pointed out Hilary's own change of position (assuming the statement is accurate) from not long ago.

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

FLIP FLOP! I say!

For all of the talk of Obama's lack of experience, it's not that Hillary has tons more. She's got a few years of being a senator on him. That's it.

She may have lived in the White House, and she may have watched what it's like to be President. However, at the end of the day, watching and doing are very different things. I could go watch a guy at NASA build a rocket, but it doesn't mean that I could necessarily do it.

It's also interesting what a big deal people are making about them meeting with hostile foreign leaders. If we agree to meet with them without precondition, then we're not necessarily offering anything. Nor are the foreign leaders. Essentially, it's world leaders coming together to talk. I think many are anticipating a lot of specific concessions from the US without anything in return. Both Clinton and Obama have backgrounds in the legal world, so I don't see that happening.

Mrs. Clinton's intention that we should continue the same tired course of action is evidence why she should not be elected.

I think most people are fed up of politics as usual, and its not as if a "meeting" comits the United States to any particular course of action.

As for the notion that any such meeting would be used as propoganda, I'd say a refusal to meet can just as easily be used as propoganda. If anything, such a refusal might be more damaging to the U.S., as it could be seen as a national insult. At least with a meeting, you have the potential that SOMETHING might get done.

Are Clinton and Obama the only ones running on the Democratic ticket? One would think so, according to the media. While it is obvious a few candidates are the "William Hungs" of the primary, media coverage of the two debates so far have focused mainly on these two candidates. Okay, we get it: a woman or an African American could be the leader of the free world, which is amazing less than a hundred years ago, neither could vote in this country. Maybe the others should try out for American Idol to get some publicity based strictly on performance.

In my opinion Hillary's answer was simply political rhetoric. If Obama is "willing" to meet with our adversaries don't you think Obama, or any other candidate for that matter, and their administration would assess the matter and prepare substantially?

Obama is right this is just "a nice fabricated controversy"

The Clinton royal family denigrates Obama for being naive... The Clinton brigade has a short term memory.
1. Mrs. Clinton was very unctious and fawned over the Arafat and his wife... How blatantly transparent she used to be...remember.
2. Mr. Clinton said he did not "inhale" and he thought Americans and foreigners were naive and stupid...
3. Mrs Clinton blamed her husband's sexual escapades on the "right conspiracy." How naive of her...
4. The Clinton brigade felt it was okay to have Elian Gonzalez's dad,a member of the Cuban communist party, stay as a guest in US military officers' quarters.
5. The Clinton brigade thought it was great to send Elian back to Cuba to live under the rule of a communist dictator.
6. Mr. Clinton did very little against terrorist groups. Remember?

I wonder what all you Hillary backers are going to do when Obama wins the nomination. Probably vote for Mitt Romney I guess.

"Keeps my friends close, but my enemies even closer". Obama hits it right on the head, the US cannot be a world power while being selective in who we should have dialogues with. The 'go it alone' attitude got us to where we are...this must change. Syria is a perfect example of missed opportunity.

Clinton took the opportunity to throw a zinger out at Obama, that was on her agenda for the debate. Plain and simple, the ONLY thing that anyone can point to is Obama's lack of Washington Experience. She would have taken an opposing position and called him naive at some point in this debate. He offered a change to the status quo that IS NOT WORKING! To even set up such meetings legwork would need to be done. All of the pundits know this, but they over simplify the situation to make for a better story. Invite these men to the Whitehouse for talks. Use the power and position of the Presidency to push a foreign policy that says we will not tolerate state supported terrorism. And propoganda, pleae in this world of the instant news cycle what is NOT used for propoganda? You remember your little accent slip Hills? Every story is spun for propoganda by the politicos, any meeting would be used for propoganda on both sides no matter what diplomacy is applied. the whole point of diplomacy is to negotiate so both sides can at least appear to come out ahead and be able to sell the compromise to thier people. So Hills says we stay the course and Obama says we need to make a change to get to where we want to go, who is being naive?

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

Hillary is a joke. If we elect a Clinto again it will be a sad day in the US. She is such a liar and hypocrite. I can't stand her.

I'm a Republican and am loving how you Dems have an uncanny ability to lose national elections. Please – oh pretty please – give us Hillary!

Vote Republican... enough said. Do democrats really think Obama or Clinton are electable? Democrats best shot is Edwards and he is trailing far behind. In this tiny little debate though, I say Clinton came out on top, America wants a change for the better, not just change for the sake of change which is the stance Obama keeps taking.

Obama would make us the United States of EuropeArabia!

With respect to the charge that Sen. Clinton's campaign is playing a political game by manipulating Sen. Obama's answer as to whether he would be willing to meet with the leaders of nations we currently find unfavorable - yes, indeed the Clinton campaign is playing a political game. Presidential races ARE political games. What Clinton did was to provide a nuanced answer to a difficult question, to indicate how Obama may have thought through the question a bit too quickly thereby demonstrating his lack of experience, and to highlight the depth of her familiarity with international diplomacy – not to mention her keen debating skills and agility in playing the political game itself. Kudos to Clinton for that. I want someone leading this country who has such experience and skill.

The question should be now whether such nuanced thinking is an electable trait. Remember Kerry 04? Alas, the majority of Americans tend not to elect candidates who demonstrate a complex thought process...

What's the point of talking to "leaders" of nations that have sworn to destroy the USA and our way of life. For the past 25 years prayers in Iran start and end with "Death to America" – Are we Americans really naive enough to believe that we can trust these "leaders" at their word, and not by their actions in the past? I pray we do not.

Being President is about having good judgment. Calling a refreshing and likable opponent irresponsible & naive is not showing good judgment. Name calling is unattractive & will turn off swing voters. Hillary has high personal negatives for a reason and Obama has momentum with crowds and money rasing for a reason. Personhood matters in elections. Voters buy based on emotion and then rationalize with facts. GWB beat McCain,Gore & Kerry as a likable cowboy outsider. Think about it.

Sen. Clinton only had one vote and it was not the deciding vote. Get over it.

"Anyone with a brain will see and understand that Hillary Clinton is very pro-war and very anti-diplomacy. This is completely identical to the Republicans and the neo-cons!

I hope fair-minded and reasonable people in America wake up and see that we need a dramatically new course in our nation’s path forward. Unlike the very negative militaristic views held by Hillary, Obama is in favor of making America the shining beacon of the world once again, just as it was for many decades.

Hillary is such a fake!!!
Posted By John A. Saah, Bethesda, Maryland : July 25, 2007 11:17 am"

There is, dear democrats, a problem with you. I'm following this from Argentina, and I really don't get how do you let special interests to divide you (eventhough being a progressive myself, I have seen many times how easily we fall on the right's traps).

Both answers were good, both answers allowed us to see diferences in policy from the candidates, both took a thoughtful approach to the problem. Obama was willing to take more risks, and Hillary prefered caution and the use of established diplomatic channels (which is not certainly the same that republicans do, when they ignore professional diplomats in favor of their own private interests).

The fact that Clinton uses this difference to play politics is not wrong, because she is campaigning on the issues, as is Obama. They are not attacking themselves on their private lives as the republicans are doing. You should all be proud (and stressing that pride) of all the candidates. All of them would make good presidents. Democrats are just discussing which of them would be a BETTER president.

You should be energized and avoid all hostility. Like and respect your fellow democrats. Show you can have political difference without hate and mudslinging. Show democrats are the only option for the grown-up

My Uncle Sal always told me "Keep your friends close and youe enemies closer." Obama knows that too. Smart man.

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

I am very impressed with Mr. Obama. He does not follow the pack. He shows true leadership, integrity and a strong character. He approaches politics in a new way. I don't see him being swayed by lobbyist and the media like HC is. Her answers are always wht the audience wants to hear at that moment. I don;t feel she is genuine. I read a note that said Mr. Obama didn't have the experience. GWB had experience and has clearly shown that he is a poor leader. His experience and experienced advisors have not helped our country. Mr. Obama shows that he is a true leader.

one other point on this subject: i want to give a "wag of the finger" to CNN on this story. On AC360 last night they edited the answers into an exchange that was way more hostel then it played out at the actual debate when you listened to the whole answers. I know "raw politics" is undoubtably and fustratingly always off issue, but that was pretty yellow CNN.

I must agree with Mr. Obama and think we cannot ignore these countries. Mrs. Clinton, I am sorry to say, sounded very much like Mr. Bush and the rest of his failed foreign policy. Anyone who sounds like Mr. Bush will surely not get my vote and most other Americans. The best way is to treat a problem/illness and not ignore it. Hillary may have talked herself out of the election with her answer, I looked at my wife and she said: "Wow, if that is not Bush, I dont know who it is".

I liked the way Sen. Obama took responsibility for starting diplomatic relations with hostile nations. Sen. Clinton's answer seems like she's less concerned about this issue, which makes me think nothing will get done. Obama seems like he'll work to obtain diplomacy, while Clinton would rather sit on it, and wait for someone to do it for her

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

Clinton gave the political answer, business as usual. And this comes in the wake of her 'Change slogan' she unleashed in iowa. The same place she chastised Bush for not doing what Obama's answer advocated. Like we all know, if the 'frontrunner' attacks, they must be very desparate.

Hillary represents "Politics as usual" and that's why I've solidly been in the Obama camp since day one. She's a Clinton and another cog in the same old political machine that we are sick and tired of.

I think people will be surprised at the outcome of the primaries. The CNN polls only show the opinion of "registered Democrats". Well gee! Don't you think that most "registered Democrats" are going lean towards Hillary and wherever their party tells them? My state doesn't require voters to be registered with a party to vote in the primaries. So be prepared to see a great deal of Obama support regardless of what any silly poll says.

Mr. Obama, I think you ought to understand the difference of the meeting between Reagan and Gorbachov vs. your fancy meetings with Chavaz and Castro, let's forget about Kim Jong Il for a moment. Do you really believe you can change anything by meeting with these skunks?

I think this small episode shows the true colors of both candidates. Clinton is the consummate political animal, and will do little to change the inadequate status quo of U.S. foreign policy if she deems it a risk to her presidency. Obama spoke what he believed to be the truth, that the U.S. can only benefit from more diplomacy and communication. Maybe a little naivety is what we need in the White House.

Hey, Hillary, we aren't in third grade anymore. Giving our enemies the silent treatment isn't the way to deal with them.

Ouch, That's now 4 – 0 for Obama. First it was the autralian prime minister, then Mc Cain, then Romney and now Clinton. They sent left jabs Obama's way and got knocked with a Right jab. Who's tougher now? He's definately a student in the Art of War, respect your opponents but don't be afraid to hit back if attacked.

Hilary Clinton feels the U.S. gov't should not have relations with Chavez then how does she feel about buying oil from him?
If the U.S. should not have relations with Cuba because Castro and communists seized control should the U.S. cut off relations with Communist China?

Senator Obama is correct in his decision to be willing to meet with the leaders of these other countries. How do we expect peace to come about if we are afraid to even communicate with these other countries. How does Senator Clinton expect to be able to become President, which consist of tryin to please a whole country, when she can't even please her husband. I liked Bill but just because he was a good president does not mean his wife will.

As a Communication Coach, I don't think it was about this one question or any one question. Technology Won. Pundits can argue over this one question, the validity of YouTube or the format of the taped questions, but the updated use of technology was the clear cut winner over one candidate or one question.

Technology will continue to revolutionize elections as TV did
in the Kennedy – Nixon debates. Candidates, are you ready?

If I had to choose between Clinton and Obama, Clinton would prevail. She has the depth of experience and grasp of nuance in Executive governmental management necessary to be an effective President. That said, I do not agree with her politics at all. But anyone who thinks that Obama is electable, is living in la-la land. It's almost laughable.

Mrs. Clinton is correct. There is a huge difference between making diplomatic efforts and having a presidential summit.

I think irrational leaders such as Chavez or Kim Jon will use a presidential meeting to advance their own totalitarian agendas. They would present such meeting as the US validating their policies.

Hillary agreed she would follow Bush's policy. send a bunch of minions all around the world and get nothing accomplished.Kennedy went to Berlin,Nixen to China, Reagon to Moscow
Obama would follow in their footsteps.
Hillary in Bush's

We need another Clinton to improve our diplomatic relations with the rest of the world. Having lived overseas I have seen how the rest of the world appreciated Bill Clinton's foreign policies and diplomatic work. I trust that Hillary Clinton will continue what her husband had started. We need to salvage America's reputation. Diplomacy & experience will be significant post-Bush era.

“I thought it was irresponsible and, frankly, naive to say that he would commit to meeting with Chavez and Castro within the first year,”

This is a flat out lie. Obama did not "commit to meet" with anyone. He said he would be willing to. And my understanding was that the question was within the first term, not the "first year".

Hillary is literally spinning lies to discredit Obama. Where's Anderson Cooper "Keeping them honest" on this one? Hillary will say anything to get elected. I

Barack makes a valid point, it was naive of Hillary and all that vote for the war to think that the American military would go into Iraq defeat Saddam and the Iraqi army and the citizens would be celebrating the Americans coming to liberate them. They probably budgeted for ice cream, cake and punch in the first funding for the war.

Obviously they voted for the war without any understanding of the impact that the different ethnic Muslim would have, the hostile neighbors that border Iraq. Clinton as well other Dems and Repubs were very naive in how they thought the war would go.

As for meeting with the leaders of Cuba, Iran, NK, etc. Obama was right to cite that Reagan met with Gorby to diffuse and end the cold war.

Clinton looks like more of the same and Obama looks like the face of change a change this government needs.

It is sad that Obama always goes back to Hillary's vote on the war. Bush made the entire country scared about Iraq and based on that her vote was right. We learned later that the truth was not told.

Give it up Obama. We want 8 mores years of Billy. The BEST President we have had since Kennedy.

Dalton, your last paragraph says it all. Hillary Clinton is the candidate "they" (the media and the Washington establishment) want for the Democratic presidential nominee. Obama is right: After voting for the war in Iraq in the first place, Clinton asks four years later whether we have an exit strategy. This shows you what a phoney she is. She was for the war as long as it was popular and never bothered to ask the hard questions then. Now that the war hasn't brought about the desired consequences, she has the nerve to criticize.

Any candidate who has Establishment and mainstream media support should be viewed with extreme skepticism.

JD you're right. In wartime the exit strategy is to vanquish your foe and make sure they don't threaten you in the future. Then you can leave.

Chilabi and all the other Iraqi expatriates were promising us we'd be welcomed as liberators. We were naive to believe them and we didn't put enough boots on the ground to secure the peace after the initial invasion. I think much of the blame for the mess in Iraq has to fall on Rumsfeld. This could have turned out differently.

Clinton gave a bureaucratically correct answer which demonstrates her status quo approach to a political system in turmoil. Also, Clinton re-qualified the question from an intention to meet to an obligation to meet with questionable foreign leaders. Also, Clinton added merely one variable, of which there are infinite, about exercising caution. I rolled my eyes when I heard her answer, before any mud slinging began.

The argument the Obama is inexperienced and idealistic is a breath of fresh air. I welcome change in this political system (lies, fear, and special interests) I have growing contempt for more than I welcome some false sense of security gleaned from business as usual.

Despite all this, I will vote for Clinton if Obama is not nominated.

Simply put I like them both, to add to that, they both have great points. She states that she would like to know the intentions of the meeting, however; to stat that he would not is ridiculous. Please tell me when in history has a president met with anyone without knowing anything about the agenda. These debates often ask questions without enough time to actually fully answer the question. To squash all the negative rhetoric that is being blamed on either candidate....should we have high level meetings with countries that are hostile to the USA, absolutely, we need to understand the why's behind the hostility, and utilize diplomacy to try and correct the issues. We all should know that the last eight years of "I do what I want, when I want, how I want" and “if you don’t play how I want to play I am going to take my ball and go home” does not work. Need I mention that isolationism is something of the past and history has taught us a valuable lesson on that....

Next question please….

Interesting. Obama thinks it was foolish to send troops to Iraq "without an exit strategy". I wonder, did we have an exit strategy at the outset of any other war in history? Methinks not so much WWII.

They're both correct. Listen, you can't cut hostile countries off completely because then you have no talking, no communication and ultimately no idea what's going on in their minds. So yes, our leaders must meet with their leaders, but as Sen. Clinton said, it should be with clear agendas so that we aren't made to look the fool.

By the way, Sen. Obama, you were not in congress at the time of the vote for authorization of troops, so blaming Hillary for voting yes is completely trite. We as a voting populus have no idea how you would've voted. Also, the power and people's backing at that time was completely in favor of authorization. Be real.

They both said they were willing to meet with these leaders. It's just that Hillary's answer had the proper nuance to it and that's what made her answer more "presidential."

I will not be voting for either of these candidates, but I think it's important to note how important experience is in these matters. Obama, while charismatic to many, just does not have enough experience (in my opinion) to lead our country in these difficult times.

Unconditional access to this nation's President to outspoken enemies of our country is beyond irresponsible. It is not enough that these enemies meet with the President but also that they listen. There is no gain for us to give these people a voice in the ear of our President unless we know that they will also listen to what comes out of the mouth of our President. Hence this thing called diplomacy before a meeting happens.
It disturbes me most that we Americans take polar opposite views of these answers to a question that uses the word, 'unconditional,' as if the answer, no, automatically means that under no condition will the President meet with these people. The answer, no, simply means, in this case, that there would be conditions.
What should be said to Mr. Obama is this, "Shame on you for so recklessly approaching something so important." What should be asked of Mrs. Clinton is this, "Under what conditions would you meet with these people?"

Hillary may not be right often, but she's right this time. Contrary to what her supporters say, however, there's nothing "sophisticated" about her understanding of the matter. It's simple common sense. One need only examine Richard Nixon's China initiative to recognize that certain agreements are made and conditions laid with hostile nations before our President enters such discussions. Hillary also has the advantage of having witnessed her husband's foolish peace initiative in 2000 with Arafat (hostile) and Barak (lacking prior agreements), which not only failed, but kicked off another round of hostilities in the middle east.

Dennis Kucinich is the only Dem worth voting for.

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!

Mr. Obama is a great communicator – because he said that he is willing to sit down and talk with these leaders is simply saying that he's willing to establish a communication dialogue to try and work out our differences. It's not likes he's saying let's be best buddies.

You guys are making too much of this.

Hillary said she would first send diplomats to test the water. I think Obama is great, but does not have the experience that Hillary has.

I do agree we need to speak with everyone, but there are ways of doing things.

I am with Hillary on this.

Our nation is witnessing the damage a person with little experience can cause while sitting in the Oval Office. Obama's talent is public speaking, not public service. Give me a brillant woman who can lead over a guy who gives brillant speeches anyday.

Bobbi Jo Weber
Louisville, KY

Clinton is simply more of the same. It's an effort to assert difference between what she and the other leading candidate would do. Trust me if Obama had said he wouldn't meet with the mentioned leaders then she would have said she would meet with them. She proved that she is indeed an experienced politician. Which simply means that she can spew out crap and avoid real issues with the best of them. Way too much is being read into this one issue. Ask the average American wether they care more about meeting or not meeting with Castro then they do about not being able to go have that operation that will save their life because they don't have health insurance.

This shows the difference between the two canidates. Hilary has a better understanding of "how things are done" in Washington, while Obama has a better understanding of "how things should be done." Hilary would have more internal control while Obama would be better at international politics. Take your pick.

Anyone with a brain will see and understand that Hillary Clinton is very pro-war and very anti-diplomacy. This is completely identical to the Republicans and the neo-cons!

I hope fair-minded and reasonable people in America wake up and see that we need a dramatically new course in our nation's path forward. Unlike the very negative militaristic views held by Hillary, Obama is in favor of making America the shining beacon of the world once again, just as it was for many decades.

Hillary is such a fake!!!

Hillary is what is wrong with politics. Keep doing business the old fashion way and when it does not work wonder why. Obama is a breath of fresh air and should be commended for it.

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 to anyone who actually listened to the answers.

I just want to ask: How long has Obama been in politics? Exactly he knows nothing. He's a young freshman Senator that needs to get more exp. before he tries to run the country!!!! GO Clinton GO!!!

Again, a perfect example of why Hillary should not be president. We are tired of politicians that want to have a pre-meeting to discuss a meeting for another meeting and so on... ACTION is what's needed, not talk talk talk

Hillary Talks Tough On Iran, But Open To Talks
Here’s Senator Clinton:

Calling Iran a danger to the U.S. and one of Israel’s greatest threats, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said “no option can be taken off the table” when dealing with that nation.

But Clinton, a top 2008 Democratic presidential contender, also called for a dialogue with countries hostile to Israel – including Iran and Syria – as a way to promote peace in the Middle East.

“I have advocated engagement with our enemies and Israel’s enemies,” Clinton told a crowd of Israel supporters on Thursday. “I believe we can gain valuable knowledge and leverage from being part of a process again that enables us to get a better idea of how to take on and defeat our adversaries.”

Clinton, D-N.Y., spoke at a Manhattan dinner held by the nation’s largest pro-Israel lobbying group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

“U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons,” Clinton told the audience. “In dealing with this threat … no option can be taken off the table.”

Great, more "nuanced" thinking from a leading Democrat (see Kerry) as that is a buzz word for talking out of both sides of ones mouth.

Busk get's hammered by her and others from the party for not talking to these evil bastards as they have flat out said that their goal is nukes and destroying the US and Israel etc, etc, so he as usual genuflects to them and they in turn hammer him for NOW TALKING TO THEM.

This country is only going to get worse as this political discourse is going to kill us.

Oh Hillary for someone with so much "experience" that comment was a "rookie" mistake. "Slap Down", back at you. That decision was about life and death and yes it was at best niave and at worst calculating (politically) to assume that Bush would do anything except what he did. Afterall she has said over and over she "thought he would blah, blah, blah....

Substantively, I'm not sure that Senator Clinton gave a better answer. She spoke more authoritatively, and did her best to destroy her opponent, but I think her answer merely representated the democratic lack of pragmatism. She declared that she would "not be used for propaganda", but I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean. My friends and I sat watching the debate wondering what she was trying to say. She took the easy answer, condemning poor leaders that dislike America, and playing on the ethnocentrism of many American viewers. I think it was politically risky for Senator Obama to outright say that he would visit with these leaders in his first year. He went out on a limb. However, I disagree that Senator Clinton made him look foolish. Yes, her tone was overcoming, but in the end I have to ask, what was her actual point?

Clinton's answer did indeed illustrate her "sophisticated understanding" of diplomacy and Obama's "not so sophisticated understanding" of diplomacy.

Hands down.

Obama's talk of Clinton's vote on authorizing the invasion of Iraq is valid but is beginning to seem overused.

Simple. Obama was bammed by Clinton. Period. Did anyone see Obama's reaction when Clinton was responding? His face froze and just wanted her to end her response, asap. That hammer fell so hard that Obama remained zombied for the rest of the debate.

...Haha, that's funny Obama. Considering your voting record is IDENTICAL to Sen Clinton's, I'm having a hard time if you had been in the Senate at the time of the vote, you'd have voted differently.

Yea right.

Big Mistake, Hillary! This is precisely the sort of flawed judgment that will keep many of us (who WANT to support you!) from doing so in the final analysis. I suspect some campaign idiot made the choice for this comment, but your gut should have told you "no."

I think Obama is right on target. This is indeed a fabricated controversy. In addition, Hillary's smugness in her answer is no different than the Bush administration. If Hillary would be elected, I would expect the U.S. to be even further isolated from the world due to lack of diplomacy. Obama is the only realistic chance we have in this country to reclaim any kind of moral standing in the world.

What Obama is doing is living without fear. At some point, we must act. We can't wait for the political pundits or critics to give us our blessings before making an appropriate move.

What Hillary is suggesting is that we wait until after the polls come out to make a policy decision. Why not just use a sailboat to determine which direction our country is going in?

I think the majority of American have come to realize that the isolation approach to dealing with nations we don't like is counterproductive and they want someone who is willing to engage our adversaries in a responsible and strong manner.

Hillary Clinton is trying to reinforce the image that she is tough enough to be president but that focus on toughness without pragmatism is the root foundation of the Bush policy of isolating countries like Iran and Syria which was recently reversed after it was realized we need them to stabilize Iraq.

As for Castro and Chavez, they both have huge support in the African American community because of their support for Assatt Shakur and discounted home heating oil.

Hillary is becoming a political robot programmed to give the answers her inside the beltway advisers tell her to give without much understanding of how real Americans feel

The powers of the Executive are very limited when it comes to domestic matters. Every action taken by the president in constrained by Congress and the Surpreme Court. In the international arena, it is an entirely different story. Presidents have full authority over the nations military and foreign policy agencies. An assertive president can easily pursue their own foreign policy agenda with a minimum of outside interference from the rest of the government.

That said, it is very significant that the majority of individuals who have experience in foreign matters are coming out against Sen. Obama's response to the YouTube question. It is one thing to be idealistic and visionary; it is another thing to be this country's nexy Jimmy Carter. Though I am not a fan Sen. Clinton, I have to admit that her answer showed insights into the complexity of international relations. That knowledge is, so far, lacking in Sen. Obama's foreign policy statements. He can preach against Bush's policies all he wants, but let's not try to repeat his actions to the point that we reject doctrines that have served this country well before he was ever elected.

Obama needs to get some idea of how things work in the world. If every president starts off his foreign policy agenda with a clean slate, just what would be the motivation for a tyrant (who doesn't have to face reelection) to negotiate with an adminsitration with which he disagrees. He could simply wait for the next guy who might be more amenable. With Chavez and Castro it isn't just about Bush since both of them predate the Bush administration. Hint to Obama, there has to be some continuity to our nations foreign policy as administrations change. Otherwise, long term issues which extend past the current administration would never be effectively handled. Sorry, but Obama just doesn't have the experience for the job.

Go Hillary Go!!!

With repect I did not find any thing wrong in Mr. Obama's answer. If we show the good will our meeting will have a very good chance of achiving the goal if one shows on my term only than our enemeies are going to be less interested to come forward, that is what is at present.

I think that this story cuts to the heart of what is wrong with our government and it's current standing with the rest of the world. The current administration since it's early days took a unilateral approach even before 9-11. Now it's as if it operates completely out of fear. It seems as if they want Americans to remain scared so they can remain in office. The same holds true for Clinton. She's looking, searching, almost frantically for anything that will keep Obama at bay.

The bottom line is America has been in dire need of BOLD new leadership in the twenty-first Century. All we've had is the same old politicians preaching the same old political sound-bites that have undermined this country's moral fabric as well as it's standing as a world leader. Obama could be the first American President of the the new age that is truly representative of America.

Mr. Obama .. what has one got to do with the other.
Your answer to the question was naive.
To try to equate that with what Ms. Clinton (and a majority of Democrats) did five years back is also, in my opinion .. naive.
I would respectfully suggest that, at this point in time, you Sir are not ready to lead this country

Writing as a person who could support Hilary Clinton for president, she did not answer the question asked, but Barak Obama did answer it as asked. It was not "promise," as Clinton says, but "willing," which is how Obama answered. The idea that you don't talkt to enemies means that there can be no progress with them. Hilary seemed to be playing politics and trying to gain points, rather than give a a truly thoughtful response. If Clinton keeps up with that line of thinking, she will lose support.

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.

"Are you willing to meet" is not the same as "do you promise to meet." First, they didn't answer the same question. Second, aren't they each right; one to be willing to talk to those who wish us harm, and the other to know what their intentions are in those talks? If we don't talk to them, we must inevitably fight them, or send our children to fight them. While their current intentions are self-evident, their intentions in specific discussions between their highest ranking leaders need clarification before engagement. I think Obama is correct in calling this a "fabricated controversy." Reminds me of Quemoy and Matsu in the '60s.

Well, I notice that in recent times, GWB took the same attitude that HC is espousing. I would think that we need to change our direction considering that America is regarded worldwide as a stumbling bully with a low intellect.

Old school vs New school

Its time for a change.