Yeah sure that is not the way they do things instead presidents are supposed to fund violent dictators and use him to test our chemical weapons like Sadam and then turn him into our number one enemy over night

Hi Dave,

I am sorry the post was deleted and for making the wrong assumption you saw it. I said please do not extrapolate my views to the Namibian populace as it wouldn't be fair to demonize a whole population because of one opinionated person.

I am not really wanting to argue with you. I had included these links http://hrw.org/doc/?t=usa . The only point I didn't make in the removed post was that of America's former segregation laws.

I could argue that America has more HR issues. You could argue that it's a larger country and that per capita Namibia is worse.

This is not a discussion of whose HR abuses are worse, the point I would like us to leave on which is in agreement with yours is that we ALL have them.

I agreed with you that Obama employed a little spin on his jumpshot. And you are right we are digressing. Since we are the last two on this blog it might be a good idea to keep up with the rest of the bloggers, but I see you have already been there. How many Dave's from Arizona can there be?

If you want to have the last word please feel free. I might disagree but won't reply.

Taka,

I didn't see any other post other than the one asking to quote in full. I am not make excuses for the civil rights violations that have occurred throughout the history of the United States. I'm just pointing out that in constrast to human rights violations perpetrated in other world nations your comment that the United States, until late in the last century (ending in 1999), were some of the worst just does not hold water.

As far as the human rights violations that have occurred in Namibia the information is available in a United Nations Commission on Human Rights report. The report ranks world nations based on human rights violations. Namibia is not the worst. It does however rank much lower than the United States.

Albeit these points really do not apply to the discussion at large. The real issue is whether or not Obama has a valid understanding of world diplomacy. I personally do not believe he does. His answers to the question and the spin he used to discredit Clinton makes this even more apparent.

Thanks Dave,

I did understand what you meant. I wish CNN hadn't removed my 2nd last post in which I had said that there is no justification for saying that Namibia has "one of the worst human rights records".

I had hoped you would read it because I also asked you to justify that statement. I think you must have read it because I expanded on the point which was that I was referring to the last century , which I see you responded to.

For the purposes of clarity I had also said that I was wrong in going so deep into the past and that despite agreeing with you that Obama may have put employed a little spin I still think he is the man to support.

P.S. I would ask CNN to please justify why you removed a legitimate comment from this blog but I am not sure I would get an answer. Please restore it.

The last century ended in 1999 (or 2000 to be more correct). Say what you mean and mean what you say.

The spin I was referring to is how Obama frames the argument. Again, the question was whether or not the President would or should meet with these rogue nations during the first year of their administration.

Obama is spinning Clinton's no answer as meaning she, if President, would never meet with the nations in question. She never said she would not meet with those nations at all. She said she would not meet with them during her first year in office. She would, however, work through third party channels and meet directly with those nations after the ground work is in place. Surprise! That's why there is a Secretary of State, to lay the ground work necessary for face to face meetings.

This is where the inexperience of Obama shines through.

Last point Dave (of Arizona),

If you will quote a person please quote in full. I did not just :

accuse the United States of having “…some of the most racist and anti-semetic views of any nation…”

. . . as your post suggested. My whole statement was as below.

"Until late in the last century Americans have held some of the most racist and anti-semetic views of any nation as expressed by terminology for various racial groups."

I was wrong in my spelling. I referred to the past not the present. Is this what you mean by "spin" ?

Taka,

You make some interesting points…and opinions. I must say I find it odd, however, that you would chastise the United States based on human rights when your own country, Namibia, has one of the worst records of violations.

I find it even more odd that you would accuse the United States of having "…some of the most racist and anti-semetic views of any nation…" when Namibia has been struggling with the oppression of South Africa for decades.

A wise man once said, "first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." Would it not be prudent to correct the situation in your own country before you take on the discressions of another?

You point regarding America as being "too geared to winning, to holding the ideals it embraces as unassailable and it frowns and looks down on the positions and values of others" makes no sense at all. If the United States' only interest is to "win" why would it support other world nations? Lest ye forget the United States has committed $15 billion dollars the help fight HIV/AIDS in other world contries…including Namibia. Even pharmaceutical companies are offering medications around the world at little or no cost. If the United States only cared about itself and its own interests those monies would have been spent domestically, the medications would have been sold at full retail, and your country would have been left to wallow in your own misery.

Based on your original post it is evident that you did not watch the YouTube debates. While I agree with your comment that Romney sounds as if the President rubber stamps the actions of his or her functionaries, your assertions regarding the functions of the President as a diplomat make little sense when taken in context. The discussion is not whether the President should ignore world countries and their various leaders.

The YouTube question was whether or not the President would meet with rogue nations during their first year in office. Clinton said no. Obama said yes. Obama has tried to spin his answer by alluding to the position that a no answer means Clinton, if President, would never talk to the nations in question. It is blantant spin and it would appear that people such as yourself have been taken in by it.

There are foreign policies in place that every country abides by. One of the basic issues of Namibia's foreigh policy is the health, well-being, and security of Namibia and surrounding nations. Why would this not apply to the United States as well?

When Hugo Chavez called George Bush satan before the United Nations would the United States be better off if Bush sat down with Chavez and discussed the matter? It's naive to think so and it is this point that Obama shows his inexperience. Chavez wanted to create a stir at the United Nations and it was right for President Bush to ignore the comment, in so doing discredit and devalue Chavez as a world leader.

Diplomacy goes much deeper and much more complicated than Obama makes it out to be.

Tom, I should be saying I apologise for the intrusion but the debate was kind of open.

My views are alien to many of you and inconsequential to your country's present quest for adequate and appropriate leadership. Your points are valid and impassioned. The sarcasm, which I'd realy call wit, was not lost on me. I am sure we will disagree as have most of the people in this CNN political ticker.

It is a puzzling time pieceing together millions of bits of information which will influence your ultimate choices. Wish you the best.

Taka, I don't agree with some of your thoughts, but we do have some common ground, I respect your opinion, you are obviously a well thought out writer and thinker who is well intentioned.

Some of my thoughts and sarcasms may have gotten lost in translation, but we can agree to disagree.

Hi Tom, I reread the original post you put and realized there were actually 4 question marks even though the third was mixing a viewpoint with a question. I will try to answer the questions as you request but my grasp of "intelligence" may not meet your standards.

1. "What do you say?": It depends on whether you are talking about that particular issue or something else. If it is the viewpoint of "Death to all Americans" then you proceed from a position of inquiry. If it is something else which has no bearing on the viewpoint and vice-versa as I had mentioned earlier then you can discuss the issue albeit not entirely throwing caution to the wind.

2. "A bridge for sale perhaps?". I don't understand this point and it would not be prudent to guess.

3. "Do you rush into or have any talks with them?": If the point of talking is to try to avert their threats becoming actions wouldn't it make sense to pre-empt the speech and actually seek out middle or common ground? I think it might be more helpful than allowing paranoia and fear to fester.

4. "Based on what do you discuss?": Perhaps on the basis that you are entitled to hold differences of opinion and that you are also allowed to make attempts to breech them. You stick to the subjects you have agreed to discuss.

You last asked the question "How would you approach someone whose stated goal is to wipe you out and a close ally". Dare I suggest you first get "accurate" intelligence. No definitely and obviously you approach with caution. Not with a gun (economic or metallic) pointed at their head. Hardly diplomatic.

You are absolutely right in saying that there are some people who will hate you no mater what you do. You are right in that preparatory talks are often best. I don't think it correct to make generalizations about a people on the basis of a few idiosyncratic individuals political and religious.

" YOU CAN HOWEVER SECRETLY PUT OUT THE OLIVE BRANCH VIA DIPLOMATS TO GAUGE A FEEL FOR WHAT COULD BE A “COMMON GROUND” AND THEN AFTER THAT IS ACCOMPLISHED YOU SEND THE DIPLOMATS OVER TO MET IN A NEUTRAL AREA AND DISCUSS THOSE “COMMON GROUNDS” AND THE KILL AMERICANS AND KILL JEWS TALK IS FLATLY AND FIRMLY TOLD THAT IT WON’T BE TOLERATED. "

I disagree that you just tell people even dictators that viewpoints won't be tolerated. Don't dictate to dictators. America's Human rights record has only improved significantly in the last 50 years and you still aren't quite there yet. Until late in the last century Americans have held some of the most racist and anti-semetic views of any nation as expressed by terminology for various racial groups. You don't just tell people that is not on. . . you allow them to re-educate themselves by stating and trying to show the correctness of your position. If it takes decades for animosity to grow between nations eg USA and CUBA do you think that your "it won't be tolerated" approach will work. I think not. Aim to agree on a systematic climb-down from positions of antagonism. Did you listen to Raul Castro yesterday? He made a valid point about improving ties with America. If you didn't hear it look it up and tell me what you would do now that an olive branch has been offered. I could be wrong but your suggestion is that only America has olive branches. I think Obama would know what is the right thing to do.

The rest of the world has problems eg Africa has corruption, despotism and bad governance. The world doesn't deny it. America should not subscribe to the view that unless you toe the American line you are a bad man/woman. Possibly the only means of achieving success in negotiations with opponents is to attempt to see things from their perspective, I am not saying believe what they believe but look at things from all sides. Audi alterem partem. What is the point of buying self-improvement books from people like Steve Covey if you can't even enact some of his gems like Habit number 5 "Seek first to understand".

I agree that America has given more aid than most other countries and has offered itself in instances where others have feared to tread. That however is not the issue in this debate or in Osama's and Hilary's original discussion from which. . . sadly we are digressing.

To help you understand how others view America you could try reading a couple of books like Bill Blum's Rogue State. Now please live up to YOUR end of your unilateral offer and get on with the analysis of the rest of mankind.

Has been great discussing with you though. Apologies for the length.

Great comments from Mitt Romney! Right is right, and, by God - Hillary's response got it right. In these partisan times it's refreshing to hear any candidate support an opposing party's candidate when they express the correct answer to impromptu questions. By the way you don't want to hold your breath until a Democrat points out that a Republican is correct because that could be life threatening. Sorry Obama fan club Hillery has shown through this simple response to negotiating with your enemies that she is much more experienced and capable of asending to the Presidency. We need capable canidates running for both parties because at the end of the day the President is the President for all Americans. Obama falls woefully short.

As an Independent I'm with Ron Paul.

He truly stands out from the others in my mind.

The whole concept of diplomatic relations is one of the silliest abstracts that mankind has ever created. Unfortuantely, it's one to which everyone adheres and that every major actor on the geopolitical stage usually respects. The phrase "only Nixon could go to China" is illustrative of the key issue with Obama's statement. It's not a bad idea to open a dialogue with one's enemies (and it's almost always preferable to fighting), but you have to have the right person with the right reputation carrying your message. How people should evaluate Obama on this tack is not whether he'd meet with these tyrants, but whether or not he'd be the right guy to do the talking.

http://mikeelliottsblog.wordpress.com

Up to this point, I've been an Obama supporter. But I'm troubled by the notion of an American president meeting with world leaders who have made it their avowed purpose to publicly humiliate the U.S. at every turn (ie Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Kim Jung Il). Publicly meeting with such people is NOT a legitimate alternative to the current administration's debacle of a foreign policy. Hillary (and dare I say Mitt Romney, God help me) is right on this one.

It’s time for change. The politics of yester years are no more,gone with the wind it has, Mrs clinton wake up its 2008 and its Obama time…we love this GUY..he is just so BILL CLINTON like, dont you get it!!!
OBAMA 08′

Hillarys Top 5 Reasons For President

- The New York times and CNN have endorsed me with their glowing coverage.

- Fox news finally loves me, proof, Rupert Murdoch held a fundraiser for me.

-The Clinton years were soo prosperous, when we left office, we gave up the house, the senate and the alot of governorships to republicans.

-I like making people feel good by telling them what they want to hear.I'm told its good for their health. Remember the twang i put on infront of black people.

-I'm the only one who can end the war in Iraq. I should know because i voted for it. And after finally taking 4 years to read the intelligence report,my experience tells me that what we need now is an exit strategy.

Mitt is truly playing the game well. He now knows that he has the Republican nomination in his control and he is taking his comments directly to the Democrats. Mitt has the right strategy, the right message and the financial backing to get to The White House.

This coming from the guy that is not opposed to using nukes against Iran…. His words mean very little to me.

Romney, you need to crawl back into your little hole. You are insignificant in this election. Fall back.

Totally Agree with Romney.
And as has been well documented in these comments, he said that the US would talk and hold relations and help promote diplomacy and mutual respect, but the office of the President speaking to the head of a foreign government is not the first step of that ladder.

blah blah blah

That's why the Republicans want Hilary Clinton to win. They back her now so she can win the nomination so they can get back in. Obama has the ideas and guess what he is correct…The refuse to talk attitude is not working so let the president try, after-all like it or not, the leaders of countries we oppose are still a factor in the world. Someone needs to deal with them so we can have peace!!!

Taka, since you seem to have a good grasp on intelligence, just answer what I wrote about and I will worry about analyzing the rest of all mankind (I can handle it because I am an American who knows everything and wants to win at everything).

You make it sound like we are selfish, that is a liberally socialist mantra where they like to hammer conservatives by saying "well you have yours, so forget about everyone else".

News for you buddy, we give more aid and dropped more blood than any country in existense to help people who don't have as much or needed our assistance.

Does that sound like someone who doesn't care about everyone winning?

Nobody has done more to help everyone have a chance at winning than us.

How would you approach someone whose stated goal is to wipe you out and a close ally of yours, anyway other than I indicated?

For all this great country has done over the years for other countries in many ways and many times over, we still WILL ALWAYS have people that hate us no matter what it can be for religious, financial etc, etc reasons and all the diplomacy in the world will not change that.

I welcome your well thought out responses.

I agree with Obama. What is the harm in talking with other leaders? That should be the least that we should de before sending thousands off to war. Let's not forget that Eisenhower met with Francisco Franco, a tyranical dictator. Eisenhower even took him back into the fold of Western powers. Guess why…because the US government wanted something from them. Later we built military bases in Spain that we used for many years. That wasn't the first time a US president met with a dictator. The problem with the US government is that they do things based on greed and power and not righteousness and truth… eventhough they are always talking that talk to get a vote. Considering Bush's communication skills, it's probably best he doesn't speak directly with anyone without a script.

FLIP-FLOP-FLIP-FLOP-FLIP-FLOP-FLIP-FLOP

Let's see if Romney says the same thing tomorrow.

I'm sure by tomorrow Romney will have found a new position.

If I was Hillary, I wouldn't want someone who holds up bigoted signs to be defending me.

FLIP-FLOP-FLIP-FLOP-FLIP-FLOP-FLIP-FLOP

Shawnie from Grants Pass. I do appreciate the sarcasm once in a while. But there is not now and never was anything funny about 9/11.

The trouncing I had meant was on legitimate bilateral agreements where America's full aspirations are not fully realised through negotiations. No one sanctions terrorist activities.

My point was that America is just too geared to winning, to holding the ideals it embraces as unassailable and it frowns and looks down on the positions and values of others. I still think that you have to cultivate the ability to engage and discuss being considerate of the positions of other parties no matter how disparate from your line of thinking.

No offence was intended. It wasn't great advice. Just an opinion.

I think you misunderstood…

"If America were more concerned with everyone winning as opposed to just America winning then you wouldn’t be so uptight about being occasionally trounced."

Gee, Taka from Nambia, great advice…I have no idea why we were so uptight about 9/11 or any other terrorist attacks. We should let our guard down and just take the punches once in a while.

Given that the Presidency is a position won (and often stolen) as opposed to bestowed for outstanding achievement or "real qualities" it can't be likened to a knighthood, sainthood or Nobel Prize. The President like any other functionary is a servant of the people, although he has the biggest house and his own airplane. Romney makes it sound as if all the President does is rubberstamp what other functionaries have done. What makes him think that other leaders would consider it an honour anyway?

If you as a Presidential aspirant don't have the humility to recognize your enemy as a person worthy of talking to then 1.) You will never be able to avert atrocities like at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo because these kinds of imperialistic outlooks kind of cascade to your subordinates and country-men and 2.) you will never be able to talk your way out of a war although in your own skewed thinking your deputy might be able to, 3.) you shouldn't be running.

Talk to your enemy, respect what is worth respecting and reject the rest. SIMPLE. . . oh and be courteous whilst you do it. Stop talking about foreign leaders as if they were tainted meat. Not a one is unblemished.

It is easy to understand why heralds have always been revered throughout history because they always exemplify the type of humility, deportment and diplomacy that their monarchs failed to demonstrate. I suppose humility would be at variance with that notion of the divine right of Presidents.

I'd ask Tom what he'd say to his own question regarding "Death to all Americans and Jews"? Maybe you decide if what you are going to discuss actually has a bearing on this viewpoint or vice-versa. One could ask a question "What do you say to a president who wants you to disarm but keep all the nuclear warheads for himself?" Anyhow decide what limited area you are going to tackle and stick to it. Leave sex, politics and religion out of it. Does that help?

And Tom maybe if you analysed the world stage you might understand the roots of why some people don't like you (America that is). And maybe if you (America) were big enough you might do something about it . . . apart from the posturing, threats and use of the the military. For instance "ask them why" by telephone, teleconference, post, e-mail or . . . go fishing.

Shawnie perhaps going over to see eye-to-eye might avert a situation where you have an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye. If your name happens to Polyphemus this might be a situation you are keen on avoiding.

If America were more concerned with everyone winning as opposed to just America winning then you wouldn't be so uptight about being occasionally trounced.

Romney's comments are almost comical, and he basically makes Obama's point; one major problem with the Bush administration's vision of diplomacy is that it inherently implies a sense of unwarranted arrogance among our delegates. When Romney says, "you do not bestow the dignity of the presidency on people like [them]," he implies that other foreign leaders should view open communication with U.S. policymakers as some sort of righteous privelege. Open communication and subsequent cooperation amongst world leaders is the necessary next step; implying that world leaders need to earn their right to help the U.S. solve the world's problems is absurd.

Ron Paul in '08

I think that most people aren't worried about talking with authoritarian regimes or dictators so much as they are about concessions or collaboration with oppressive governments. I admit that I was taken aback by Sen. Obama's comment, but U.S. presidents such as Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and others have spoken with the leaders of such governments directly. The worry is that the senator's approach would be trying to reconcile the United States with foreign governments without keeping U.S. interests paramount. Sen. Clinton is most likely right that certain parameters are necessary for dialogue, but Sen. Obama is not making as bold of a statement as it sounds.

Seriously?!?! How long will this go on and how many people are going to jump in before it's done?

Personally. I respect him for his willingness to sit down and talk. isn't that what diplomacy is?

At least Romney is honest about his stand on this issue. Hillary is his major opponent, and when he thought she was right, he said so. It lends him more credibility for the times he disagrees with her. That it isn't just to pick a fight.

What people are declaring as "arrogance" and the "old way" looks like practicality/reality. International relations are REALLY complicated. There are leaders with all manner of agendas and motives.

If several of our children or friends were captured and beaten, robbed or murdered by the leader of a local gang, would our reaction be to go visit at his house? Find out if we don't see eye to eye?

Foreign relations would have to be a case by case basis, and I would hope for a President that spent a lot more time on America, rather than trotting all over the globe scoring cheap political celebrity points with countries whose agenda is to trounce us as soon as they get the chance.

I want you geniuses to explain what do you exactly say to a "leader" of a country that CLEARLY wants DEATH to all AMERICANS and DEATH to all JEWS?

Just curious, do we offer them what is behind door number one, a bridge for sale perhaps.

You can however secretly put out the olive branch via diplomats to gauge a feel for what could be a "common ground" and then AFTER that is accomplished you send the diplomats over to met in a neutral area and discuss those "common grounds" and the KILL AMERICANS and KILL JEWS talk is flatly and firmly told that it WON'T be tolerated.

Once those words are repudiated by the leader, POSSIBLY the PRESIDENT would then take part in open dialogue between whatever country it is.

Bush has been hammered for both doing this and for not doing this.

It is so easy to blame us for all that is wrong, but think about it, we used nothing but diplomacy and our installations still got bombed over and over during the Clinton years (some of you laughingly talk about how much we were loved, tell that to all of the families that lost loved ones how loved we were).

I can't believe I am going to say this, but after really thinking about it, HILLARY is right, if someone is just going to say, kill, kill, kill, do you rush into or have any talks with them?

Based on what do you discuss?

We are not always the bad guy as some of you like to think, guess what, as grownups you need to realize no matter what you do, SOME PEOPLE JUST DON'T LIKE YOU.

"How do they ever hope to draw peace between us and “tyrant” nations if we will not swallow our pride and show them the respect every nation deserves."

North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, and Syria are nations that deserve respect? Should they be respected for the way they abuse and plunder their countries and people? These countries are getting MORE than the respect they "deserve." You think WE are messed up with the current administration, imagine if you were a citizen of ANY of the countries you mentioned. If it were that bad here you'd already be in prison or worse. Think about it.

“Meeting with [authoritarian tyrants] is not what a president does.”

Hmm…could that be part of our problem?

It's time for a change in Washington and not politics as usual!

How about some reading comprehension guys? Romney and Clinton are encouraging dialogue between this countries and someone other than the President. What if the US President immediately met with a rogue leader and in turn that leader fabricated everything that occurred during the meeting to his country in order to rally hate against Americans, etc.? I don't see it as countinuing the foreign policy that we have. As far as I know, we barely send ANY diplomats to these types of countries.

What a hypocrisy on the part of Mrs. Clinton and Gov. Romney on meeting with the leaders of Cuba,Syria,Iran,North Korea, Venezuela and other tyrants. Have they forgotten that our presidents have met with the communist leaders of not only China, but also communist Vietnam. And just recently, who was it that met with the Syrian leader and other dipolomats from his government? None other than democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other top democrats. Today the U.S. likes to think of China as a trade partner among other things. Lets not forget that it was a republican president, Richard Nixon who sat with the chinese and helped China open up to the world. And,have they forgotten the result of the talks between President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev. Senator Obama is on the right track as far as talking with our enemies. You bring about changes in other nations by talking to its people and their leaders, not by isolating them. We must first start by sharing a common denominator, and that is RESPECT. Thank you.

“Meeting with [authoritarian tyrants] is not what a president does.”
Sadly it is what our president is…
Unfortunately, neither Obama or Romney are a solution.

You know this is all crap!!!! What is "the dignity of the presidency". In business, we teach that a leader goes before to prepare the way. It's time we stop hanging our safety and our progress on what has been deemed as dignity.

No one cares about our presidential dignity but those who have benefited from it. Ask the average american what that means and I'm sure you'll get many different answers.

Romney is a tool.

Nixon met with China less than 20 years after we were at war with them in Korea.

Reagan met with the Gorbachav's Evil Empire many times.

The only thing Romney is good at is being a greedy vulture, swindling millions from venture capital scams.

WELL MAYBE IF THE US PRESIDENTS WOULD HAVE TALK TO THESE PEOPLE A LONG TIME AGO! THE US WOULD NOT BE THE MAIN TARGET OF HATE IN THE WORLD! WE CONSIDER THESE PEOPLE DICTATORS AND TYRANTS WHEN OUR OWN HISTORY OF OUR LEADERS HAVE SHOWN OUR FOUNDING FATHERS KILLED THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF NATIVE AMERICAN INDIANS ENSLAVED KILLED RAPE AND SOLD OVER 100MILLION BLACK PEOPLE! STOLE AND SCAM THE MEXICANS OF LAND KNOWN AS TEXAS AND CALIFORNIA AND GOT THE NERVE TO CALL THEM ILLEGAL ALIENS! JESUS SAID "THOSE WITHOUT SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE" WE AS AMERICANS MUST NEVER ALLOW OURSELVES TO THINK THAT WE ARE TO GREAT OR TO HIGH AND MIGHTY AS THE PRESIDENCY NOT TO TALK TO PEOPLE WHO ARE LESS OUR EQUAL OR BEHAVE IN MANNER THAT IS IMMORAL. I AGREE WITH BARACK OBAMA SOMEONE NEEDS TO TALK TO SOMEONE BECAUSE THIS WAR IN IRAQ WILL NEVER BE WON WITH MILITARY MIGHT ALONE!

The reason a lot of people around the world dislike the US and that our international relations are so bad is because we don't talk to the people we have problems with.
Imagine how welcoming it would be that the President of the US would talk with the countries it has problems with. It doesn't sound so complicated does it? Just invite people over and talk.

I think it is ridiculous that they thought Obama's response was obsurd. Basically what they were saying is that they would be ememies with other leaders just because AMerica does not actually agree with all of what they said. I am upset that Clinton and Obama and disagreeing. Are they not both Democrat and then ROMNEY comes in like this and agree's with Clinton. America is going crazy.

Does anyone else have a problem with Mitt Romney calling himself a "Republican" After all he is from Mass. one of the most leftist States in the Union. Come on how can a State with the likes of Kerry and Kennedy vote for a Republican Govenor? it is all to scary if you ask me. Are there any REAL Ronald Reagon type conservatives out there? or are we the last of a dying breed?

in response to Mauricio Toronto!

Your from toronto so do not worry about this. It is a slap in the face to send anyone but the President. Rogue nations done care about our third parties. Thats like saying a canadian should worry about this election.

Are we forgetting these "hot" areas have been around for a while and that envoys have been sent, meetings have taken place, discussions have been had and that in most cases an impasse reached? Why is it that the United States is always portrayed as the "bad guy" when we don't meet other countries'requirements? Why should the United States be the one to always give in when they are obviously unreasonable demands? The United States doesn't want to control or harm other countries or its Peoples. And the synics that say we are in it for our benefit or interests…remember….benefit of Americans. I'm certain we as Americans would excise our Democratic right(s) to protest when our interests are at stake..specially the ones that hit our pockets. Moreover, are we forgetting that these countries, CUBA, VENEZUELA, NORTH KOREA, IRAN,….are not Democratic and certainly will continue to violate Human Rights. Are we so naive as to trust these "Tyrants" or as many would address as "Presidents" or "World Leaders."

goodness, i honeslty hope most of you here are below the age of 8, cause you obviously have problems interpreting few simple paragraphs… neither Romney nor Clinton are saying that these countries should not be contacted, they simply stated that official presidential visits will send a very wrong message to our enemies - and can be used as propaganda. this is very basic. i believe that Obama got ahead of himself and really answered a different question than what was being asked. he answered what you guys are talking about - that there is no reason not to communicate with them, that we should always try to better our international relations. only that's not always done by the president himself. Obama knows this, and is now kicking himself.

We will have another terrorist attack on our soil within six months if a democratic canidate is elected. Muslims around the world, not just Al Qeada are praying we elect someone who will blame our policies on their hate and terrorism. They want leaders in our country that will let them run rampant so they can plan the next big attack. Obama has shot himself in the foot, he obviously has no idea how a president should act. Iran has already started to court the banana communist in South America, while terrorist have already tried entry from our southern borders. The middle east has not changed in my lifetime, really since the begining of time. That is why our elected leaders Republican or Democrate continue to fail, one side thinks they can talk, the other thinks they can manipulate. Unfortunately, the sad truth is the sword is the only thing that rules that part of the world. Suddam as evil as he was looks pretty wise right now !

What I find the most humorous about the entire discussion is how convoluted it has become.

If we might all think back a few days to the YouTube debate we will remember the orginal question was whether or not the candidate would visit these countries in question during their FIRST YEAR as president. Clinton said no. Obama said yes.

Clinton never said she would not talk to the countries in question at no time during her presidency.

The entire "war of words" has become laughable and only shows that neither Clinton nor Obama are fit to lead this country. It also shows how selective supporters for either candidate can be when discussing the issues.

Flip-flop Romney is a walking joke who, unfortunately, isn't remotely funny. He has to put his own spin on some stupid war of words just to get free press. Good job CNN by giving Romney exactly what he was looking for.

Clearly, Mitt and Hillary are trying to maintain the status quo of the United State's Foreign Policy. Guess what? It hasn't worked. Everyone seems to forget that JFK and Regan met with the opposition several times throughout their administrations, and no has called them naive or inexperienced. This is all part of Clinton's goal to make Obama look inexperienced and unknowledgable, when he is probably the most well prepared and fresh candidate of them all

"Birds of a feather flock together." Obama wants to open talks with foreign dictators or better yet foreign killers. What does he hope to learn?

Isn't it time to approach things in a different manner? Thus far, Bush/Cheney tactics are obviously not working. Maybe actually trying to speak with these leaders and trying to open the lines of communication would be a better approach, a different approach. Why only meet with leaders that have mutual interests/progress? We need change and I believe Obama is our answer.

Obama will win it.Hillary is just a fake politician where as Obama is a REAL American who doesnt act fake and stop for baby holding photo shoots.

Americans NEED a real american as Obama and to get rid of the cookie cutter hillarys and mitts or this country will never move forward.

How can you expect to know what another leader wants out of a meeting prior to the meeting? In addition, if these leaders are so evil, are Romney and Clinton naive enough to think that they are going to tell the truth? Listen, a foreign policy based on refusing to have a direct dialogue is what got us in this mess in the first place. I suppose the only way we should communicate to leaders we disagree with is by launching cruise missiles or an invasion force.

ROMMNEY! its a disgrace to hear you back hilary. OBAMA is right! why stand aside in a time like this where every nation pretty much hates our guts! obama has the right idea and the right mind. it is good to meet with these world leaders and talk about peace and how we can help each rather than having the attitude that the U.S constantly reflecting the image of us being better than everyone else, and the we do not care about them attitude, and leaving them out of peace talks and what not. that attitude needs to stop. And with obama it will stop;(but am sure some will greatly disagree that America should not have peace takls with countries who will trun around and stab us in the back)people of this country need someone like obama who is willing to TRY something new for a change. because rommney and hilary dont have the balls to do so! they have the same mentality as that good for nothing GWBUSH! and with that look at where we are at right now with that mentality!.

Senator Hillary Clinton calls Senator Obama, "irresponsible and naive." What could be more irresponsible and naive than for Clinton and fellow members of congress at the time to authorize the illegal invasion of a sovereign nation based on bad intelligence that has cost us over $500 billion, and the lives of over 3,000 American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens? Clinton should take a look in the mirror to see the definition of "irresponsible and naive." As for Mr. Mitt he just needs to get a life!

Considering most of the products we buy come from other countries, our arrogance is unfounded. Terrorists and the "tyrants" target the US because of our arrogance. It is high time we took a bow walked off stage and let the UN determine global policy. Lets focus on our internal problems for once. I do not want to hear another president pontificate about how we need to continue to ignore other leaders and place sanctions on countries anymore. Sanctions just end up raising the cost for us. Lets once again become self sufficient.

Of course Romney would side with Clinton. For some of the people in the middle, like me, Clinton in (or out of) the race is the key. I'm either an Edwards-Obama vote or a Romney-Rudy vote if Clinton is on the other ticket.

Obama showed his demagogic stand when he said he as a President of the United States of America will talk to Hugo Chavez, Castro and all the other renegades’ communists. What is he going to talk about? He can do so now because he is only a state representative. The United States President does not only talk ( not important issues) but establishes relations and dialogues with other dignitaries that have the duty of making this word a better place for all of us and does not have any business talking with ignorant
Leaders who controlled their people with force and false promises. No Mr. Obama I WILL VOTE FOR YOU!

MiTT/Clinton are making a mountain out of a mole-hill (again), trying their best at "sensationalism" to make Obama look bad and ignorant. I think a person being honest and sincere is a good thing. If sanctions and non-communication isn't working, then do something that will.

As for Mitt's comment (Oh, Presidents just don't talk to world leaders. . .") — how do you spell horsepuckey?

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".

I think Obama has it right. I think it would be important to meet with leaders to improve our relations with the rest of the world, relations that George W. Bush for the most part destroyed. I like Barack Obama, but my vote resides with Kucinich because he speaks about the issues that are most important to me such as civil liberties, repeal of patriot act, immediate end to Iraq War, etc. I do support Obama's answer to that question though, especially over the likes of Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney.

As a Mass. Democrat all I can do is laugh over this one. Mitt supporting your plan is the kiss of death among Democratic voters. My goodness… considering the endorsement that Obama just picked up in NH it is truly a BAD day for Clinton Campaign in New England.

It's absurd that politicians like Mitt Romney can say things that completely degrade the entire population of a country because they don't follow the same political standards as we do. They are no less of human beings than us and deserve to be heard just as we deserve to be heard. The arrogance in that statement is simply beyond me.

The absurdity here for me it that Romney doesn't ding Bush for being buds with Musharraf, or holding hands with Saudi princes. We're talking dictators and ruling monarchs here, but hey, they're not authoritarian tyrants, are they?

My problem really is that the last two Decades considering I am 25, we have been between the
Bushes and the Clintons, I just think we really need a make over at the White House! an Extreme
Make Over, Let's try someone Now, and at the moment Obama Makes way more sense! ( I just
finishing Reading his Book!

Thank you

None of these are even qualified to meet with any leaders if someone is to meet with a leader of a foreign nation is should be Joe Biden chairman of foreign relations he is the best bet for Presidency WAKE UP!!

I feel like the statements made by Clinton and Romney contain a lot of fluff, a lot of words that do not make any good points. Do they seriously think that the president of America should not try to meet with foreign leaders, understand them, and then attempt to help them understand us? I think that meeting with leaders of the world is important for our president to do and that Obama's eloquence and intelligence would be extraordinarily effective.

Someone should show Romney a photo of Nixon visiting China, and Clinton a photo of Truman and Stalin at Yalta… Are these two still in the third grade? This is the real world, guys, and you can't just give the silent treatment to anyone you don't like. And talking to bad people doesn't automatically make you one.

This ridiculous arrogance has got to stop before we can help our nation be more secure and powerful on the world stage. Americans have fallen from grace in the eyes of many foreigners to the point where we can not speak english or use our own currency in their nations like we were once so fortunate to have the privilege of doing. Whats next, hiding our own citizenship for our safety?

This has to be the dumbest "war of words" I've ever seen. Obama was speaking of the need for the country (note use of the word "we") to have relations with our enemies. Hillary politicized it into the president is going to have dinner at Castro's house. She's politics as usual. Fake as the day is long.

Shouldn't be suprising that the Republicans are backing her. They realized long ago they'd rather demonize her (and her husband) than have to face Obama in the national elections.

Reading some of the previous comments leads to one question…

Are you people actually reading the whole discourse or just parts of it.

Mr. Romney stated that the President will not meet with the Presidents of these rogue states, but the contact is made by other parties.

What do you expect from a man with the middle name Hussan.

The lesson to be learned from the Clinton-Obama exchange is that the next person to answer the question always has a chance to improve upon your answer and one-up you! Hillary, this is a cheap shot. You owe the voting public more than this kind of attack. Move on.

“It’s absolutely extraordinary that someone can be so out of touch with our world,”

This is the same guy who also wants to be able to bomb whoever he wants…

Are yall starting to realize just how much Bush that Clinton is?

Senator Obama is correct. It is empty suited doctrainaire's like Pmney who are "out of touch" with what is needed in the world.

"…[Y]ou do not bestow the dignity of the presidency on people like [them].”

No, because that is the attitude that has gotten us so far, in the world's eye, today. Ignore that those countries exist, leave them out of the negotiation table, and I'm sure they'll rush to comply with your wishes.

Huh?

When was the last time someone ignored what you had to say, and you suddenly felt the urge to do everything they asked, just so they would "bestow" upon you the dignity?

I am glad Mitt is backing Hilary on this..after all, that means more dems voting for O8AMA!

Obama should send Mitt some new cosmetics and a spa gift certificate as a thank you for that gift.

I swear the Republicans are just salivating over the possibility of having Clinton be the Democrats representative. Democrats have all the momentum here and they're going to pick THIS as a time to try to push A WOMAN through. Great job, guys.

It only shows the ignorance and closed-mindedness of the republicans and Hilary that they would not even consider speaking with representatives from those countries. How do they ever hope to draw peace between us and "tyrant" nations if we will not swallow our pride and show them the respect every nation deserves.

Hell may freeze over Hillary and Romney 'agree' … It should show you that Hillary is wrong. Its Bush Foreign Policy all over again.

Romney just further proves that he's part of the problem and not the solution.

**ATTENTION CLINTON SUPPORTERS** I hope this is a big wake up call, hearing Mitt "I'd double Guantanomo" Romney backing Hillary.

If what are we doing isn't working then we need to try a different tactic. Its worth a try

I do not agree with Mitt or Hillary. Why is it that these two people feel that they have the right to represent the people of the United States in such a arrogant and flamboyant way? We wonder why the rest of the world looks at the U.S. in such a disdainful manner, and you don't have to look any further than people like Clinton and Romney…real good policy there, let's continue to promote this whole "we're right, you're wrong, so there" attitude, and then expect to be a leader in the world. That is poor, poor leadership, at best.

Well, no kidding. Republicans stand a better chance of winning the election with Clinton than they do against Obama.