Just goes to show you, Hillary Clinton is the most qualified, experienced candidate running. She will take charge on day 1, with no "training" necessary. for more info. go to hillaryclinton.com

She voted for the war.

yeah, she's fabulous - reminds me so much of her loser husband, it makes my flesh crawl.....

Obama can go jump in Lake Michigan.  I can just see him busily "texting" the various heads of government as he sits in the Oval Office on the first day.  His statement is just neophyte hype.  Hillary Clinton understands that before a new president makes direct contact for policy discussions, career diplomats, our respective ambassadors, and even the secretary of state must pave the way.  How do you think it is that there are treaties and agreements already prepared and in nice binders when the president meets with foreign leaders?  Obama is pandering; but wait!  He's the one who claimed to be a different kind of candidate.  Well, he is: an inexperienced one.

Hilary Clinton is a power hungry manipulator who changes her mind on issues depending how the wind blows.

It shows that Hillary has the mind set of George. If elected, it will be more of the same. What a waste!

Ha… It’s funny this has completely backfired on Clinton. She thought she could say she has more experience in dealing with foreign policy but this is the same experience that she used to vote for the war in Iraq. Obama has completely crushed her and now she has to defend herself by saying she will not continue the Bush Foreign Policy. Which according to her answer she is.

Prove it Patroit; How is she experienced?  Please don't use her husband's record, that will show that is what she is running on.  What has she done on her own?  Prove it if you can!

I disagree with Hilary. Obama is correct in wanting to meet with world leaders without preexisting conditions. This sets up a rapport and shows a willingness to develop a relationship based on understanding. The better individuals interact, the more likely compromise and solution will follow.

I wonder where Hillary would be if she had never married a Governor and ex-President... I'm sure she would have found someone else's coat tails to hop on.

For more information go to Hillary's-a-Wank.com

Somebody please tell me what horrible consequences they think will occur if the U.S. President interacted with countries who are not friendly to us.   It is fun to throw the "naive" word around, but it is irresponsible to do so without backing up your argument.

The truly naive people are the Repubicans who do not seem to realize that there is anything wrong with America's standing in the world.   Anybody who thinks that we can change a country's behavior by not interacting with it should look to Cuba -- our most stunning foreign policy failure.   The country is within rowing distance of us, and yet it has had the same hostile leader for 48 years.   We sure showed them!

Dangerous times need bold leadership, not timid equivocators like Hillary who is afraid to take a chance because "it might be used for propaganda" or "it could make things worse."   If we don't take a chance that we could make things worse, how will it ever get better?   It is truly naive to think that we can continue to muddle through.

It is time for a change -- time for Barack Obama!
 

this is the op story on the first read page .Gonzos testimoaning and lyng to he peoples reps. wasnt enough .Guess i will look for it down the page.his is such a gossip non story.Come on

I really dislike Hillary, but...  This shows just how horribly bad Obama really is.  He lacks judgement, experience, and real understanding of both global politics and diplomacy.  He thinks that meeting these leaders without preconditions shows we are willing to talk.  What he obviously doesn't understand is that they don't think the way we do; their entire reasoning is different.  They see it as a power statement (their power) and that they are, therefore, in charge and even the great United States recognizes their power and bends to them.  Rather than encourage dialog to improve things, that would show them that continued bad acts will give them even more access to the U.S. President who, they will belive, will eventually offer them huge gifts to stop acting poorly.  They will also use such a meeting as a massive propaganda tool to show to their people and solidify their power base and show how "right" and "wise" they are.

I really do hate Hillary, but Obama would be a disaster.

HRC is not the most experienced. The longest resumes are reserved for Biden and Dodd. When they had the opportunity, Clinton, Dodd, and Biden got it wrong on the war authorization vote. This tired, Beltway-entrenched experience did not provide leadership when it was most needed. America needs a change in both policy and its leadership. Obama offers the opportunity to do so.

Obama has the courage to stand up and speak up for what he believes in, this is very refreshing, and this is what our country needs today more than ever.

That courage is what is missing in the other politicians of today- no spine, no principles- both Republicans and Democrats.

For this reason, Obama is a true contender.

I love Barrack's passion & charisma.  But have to agree that Hillary is more seasoned, and plenty tough and smart enough.  But like most I would like to see a non-polarizing next president.  Bush claimed to be that person, then we ended up with a Cheney-led imperialist government.  How to fix, I don't know. Maybe Bill Richardson?

Obama has been great on this.  He has turned it back onto Hillary & her vote on the war.  Round 1 goes to Obama, not HRC.  She will do & say anything to win.  I saw yesterday where her & Bill have donated $100,000 to help build a library in SC.  And how much did she pay to get Tom Vilsack's endorsement?  And also the state representative in SC?  But money can't buy you love.  

A further note on this situation. Sending delegates from the US to interact in diplomacy sends the leader of that country the wrong message. It says I am not fully committed to dealing with you directly. Leaders meeting together brings validity to their statements about wanting to alleviate disputes.

Then Clinton's were scum bags then & they're scum bags still.

" You just can't promise to meet with leaders. There need to be conditions. There needs to be leverage."

Hillary -- the United States has tens of thousands of nuclear warheads sitting in silos ready to incinerate any country that we choose.   I think that is leverage enough to risk talking to the leaders of those countries.

Hillary is proving that it is possible to be both nasty and timid at the same time.   I think that she lacks self confidence; she has been used as right wing propaganda for so long that she is afraid that smart world leaders might do the same thing to her as the vast right wing conspiracy.

This whole "controversy" is simply Hillary's sour grapes at losing the debate -- and it is backfiring on her.  

By the way, First Read, when you stick a Hillary memo into your article it is appropriate to use quotation marks.  

I read this article 3 times.....Obama is saying the same thing as Clinton.  Clinto says " I would not meet with world dictators without preconditions.  Obama says " I would be willing to meet with the leaders of Syria, Iran, etc. with preconditions.  It's the same thing...worded differently.  
Obama has big dreams, but has not earned the respect nor does he have the experience, to lead our country.  

The last paragraph in this entry is, I assume, the thinking of Clinton allies and not First Read.  However, the way it's written, it certainly looks like some editorializing on the part of Mark Murray.  This wouldn't be the first time that First Read has hinted that they have a dog in this race and it isn't Obama.  

That's the biggest problem with this entire election cycle...the media have already decided that Clinton is the nominee and the other candidates are just participating to occupy our time until the actual election.

You state this as if is true: "You just can't promise to meet with leaders. There need to be conditions. There needs to be leverage."

Saying you are 'willing' to meet is not a 'promise".

Conditions?  You mean like the Bush Admin has done demanding the halt of enrichment before talks?  Now that's naive.

Leverage?  Are military arsenals and economic clout are powerful leverage.

Every time someone says that Hillary will be ready on day 1. I ask them ready for what? More of the same, if she is going to base her presidency on her past experience we have to ask ourselves if we are happy with what we have had to deal with in the past (IRAQ)(WHITEWATER)(Lewinski) etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. For as much as I hate Dubuah, there are people out there who hate Hillary just as much... We need someone who can bring everyone together, we need a change. I think that Barack Obama is the right MAN for the job.

This whole spat is much ado about nothing. I really saw no substantive difference in the two answers at the debate. In truth, the both promised the same thing. I never heard Obama say that he'd fly out to lunch with Ahmadinejad on Jan 21st, 2009. Implied in his response was that he would start the diplomatic process, sending envoys and diplomats, followed by a secretary of state, and finally a presidential meeting itself. Hillary jumped on the situation to paint a portrait of an inexeperienced leader, and Obama is now launching a counter-offensive to paint Hillary as more-of-the-same. In reality, they'd both do exactly the same thing.

If this spat keeps up, someone might even leak the secret that the US is part of the UN. And, that we went through 12 years and 17 resolutions of 'disarm, or else'. That the same intelligence was good enough for Clinton to bomb the hell out of Baghdad in '98.  That no one, including Saddam's own generals, was aware he had no WMDs. That if we had done nothing, 2007 was going to be the "best guess" year Saddam would have the bomb.  If the UN runs out of paper on Iran, and the world says "just kidding" what then? I say put a big FSBO sign on the UN, and throw the bums out.

Most experienced? What office has Hillary Clintion ever held? What policies has she initiated or executed?  My wife is a Doctor.  I guess that makes me qualified to perform an operation.

Hillary's attack on Obama came across to me as unfair and opportunistic.  It was as if she was just waiting for a chance to put him down.  To think, I was just beginning to believe in her soft side...
The good thing is Obama now knows her game and he can be prepared.  His responses already have been pointed and pertinent.

@Me, Midwest: Not quite. The foreign leaders in question like to make a big deal about how the US won't talk to them. It allows them to play the victim (we're ready to negotiate, mutual respect, dialogue, blah, blah). By actually agreeing to the talk, we gain leverage. Now talking means nothing -- as it does in reality (talk is cheap). Once you pull the "they wont talk to us" rug out from under them, you are then able to pressure them on the real issue (whatever it might be). Obama didn't phrase it this way, but it is a side benefit of his approach.

Hillary is horrible, she's a witch and it will be pathetic if she get's back in the white house.  What's wrong with talking to other nations?  Odviously she doesnt talk to her husband enough and that led to there breakdown in marriage with the intern.  Obama has a fresh new outlook and a good change.  We need to do things completely different than we have done in the past but bottom line is Juliani will become the next president period.  Sorry to say but it wont be a women or a black man at point in history.  Maybe 10-20 years down the road but not now with how this country is still divided in many states.

What seems to be lacking in this discussion is what kind of people will HRC or Obama select for their respective foreign policy?  We have to keep in mind that a president is only as good as the people they select for cabinet posts and the environment the president projects.

With Obama ability to work with individuals on both sides of the isle, he can bring experience with him to the WH.

Sorry, but Obama just clinched my vote against him.  His likening Clinton to Bush on having the same approach to Foreign leaders sounds exactly like the same B.S. Republicans use against Dems.  Obama's got great potential, another 8 years from now he could well be the best thing to ever hit the presidency.  He's a great oracle, but he is not ready to meet the challenges the Republicans will through at him.  Hillary has survived 16 years or more of Republican attacks, and has held up better than most.  She's better suited and more experienced.  A Clinton / Obama ticket is in order.  The potential to lost the presidency in 2008 looms greater with an Obama nomination than a Hillary nomination.  Hillary is not the zaniac several make her out to be.  She will do this country good as will Obama, after some more experience. He simply can't be better prepared to step into the job because he's able to deliver a good speach.  Talk is cheap. How will he handle a plethora of bad mouthing, the likes of which he has yet to see? The likes of which Hillary has already overcome !

Hillary is horrible, she's a witch and it will be pathetic if she get's back in the white house.  What's wrong with talking to other nations?  Odviously she doesnt talk to her husband enough and that led to there breakdown in marriage with the intern.  Obama has a fresh new outlook and a good change.  We need to do things completely different than we have done in the past but bottom line is Juliani will become the next president period.  Sorry to say but it wont be a women or a black man at point in history.  Maybe 10-20 years down the road but not now with how this country is still divided in many states.

Success is in the details. Sen. Clinton said she would send diplomats to discuss and make sure the leaders wanted to pursue peaceful options. She did not say she wanted to set preconditions. Sen. Clinton is showing signs of instinctively following the process that historically leads to results in the diplomatic and political worlds.

Sen. Obama has what to show us? A new face but no evidence of grappling with complex legislative issues?

The media, both internet and traditional, is again proving its into the cutesy word-weaving but can't do the journalism that the Founding Fathers expected. The media needs to go back and dig through the recollections, video and written record of what Sen. Obama said about the U.S. entering the Iraq war back just prior to the 2002 mid-term elections when the Bush administration was feverishly twisting arms to have an up or down vote prior to the elections. Sen. Obama said what?

The media also needs to recreate for the public the conditions that existed in the Senate when Sen. Clinton and her colleagues had to vote on the war in Iraq. The Senate doesn't have a separate CIA or any other separate organization to evaluate Executive branch "evidence." At the time Sen. Clinton had to vote, the nation did not know Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Hasert, DeLay and Rice were serial liars that would plunge us into a war based on their political delusions.

I used to support Clinton but now I am pro Obama; Their attack on Obama explain while her negative is up their in the poll. Overall, I am going with Obama because he is the tomorrow in this run for white house….also on experience...Let's say you needed open heart surgery and your options were a young cardiologist or the homemaker wife of a former top surgeon; who would you choose? I don’t know about you but as for me and my family our choice will be the young cardiologist…Also, Phil Jackson a great basketball coach won a lot of NBA Championships. Maybe his wife should be in line to be the first female NBA head coach.

On experience President, Kennedy noted in one speech that "experience is like tail-lights on a boat which illuminate where we have been when we should be focusing on where we should be going"

Hillary made a Big mistake by taking on Obama so early in the process.I did'nt count the # of positive & Obama leaning respones the last couple days, but seemed to me a lot more agreed with his response to the Machine than agreed with her. I like it that he continues to hammer her, for calling him Naive. It does'nt show negative politics, it shows that he will Not let challenges go unanswered. Go Obama

BeJezzy,
I personally think Barack Obama doesnt think it is compulsory he wins the dem. nom. or becomes the president. He more importantly wants to change the way politics is done in the US. U cant claim to be one thing and do the other. U cant simply say u r for the american people when u did not read the intelligence reports prior to Iraq. U cant say u support our troops when u sent them to an imbecilic war just becos that was the popular opinion then..just bcos the whole country was caught in a frenzy of war. A leader has to consider all parts and perspectives of a question just for the benefit of the american people, make a decision and stick with it.
U cant claim to be for the american people when NAFTA, CAFTA, job outsourcing to indians is the norm when 30% of indigenous software engineers are unemployed.
Nail her to the wall I say...for all I care...Anyone (and that includes Kucinich) apart from HRC, Gravel and all of em republicans should do the job.

And here we go again...LOL.  Obama fans will keep on supporting him, Hillary haters will keep on bashing her and Hillary supporters will keep on supporting her.  Has anything new really been said on this in the last 24 hours?  If it is, I missed it in all of the regurgitation of previous comments.  

Mark: Your last paragraph looks an awful lot like pure, unfiltered Clinton propoganda and nothing like journalism.  I know it's a blog, but you don't even attempt to connect the last two short sentences to Clinton's people--they look entirely like your own.  What gives?  

I don't like either of them, but it shows how much better she is than him. Good lord, what a load of naivete. Who's gonna play the guitar when we all hold hands and sing kumbaya?

NOTE TO ZACH IN HARRISBURG:  I might not totally disagree if you take your point to the fullest implementation.  Let's close all of the U.S. embassies, clear out the Department of State and take a real hard look at the foreign aid budget.  Do you know how much money that would save us?  I spoke in support of Senator Clinton's answer, but I sure would go for getting out of the diplomacy business the way it has been done in my lifetime and use technology to let the top officials communicate with each other.  But the reality is that is not going to happen.  And then there is the fact that anyone who is president cannot devote the amount of time necessary to do the amount of talking that is required to interact with all the players in this world.  Surely you don't advocate that the president not delegate at least some of the work load.

Hillary Clinton isn't that bad, but I will never forgive her and other DLC Democrats who showed a complete lack of political courage and voted for this war.  All of the information to stop the war was out there at the time, and if a bunch of poor college students like me could figure out that invading Iraq would lead to disaster, why couldn't our so-called "leaders?"  Clinton was too afraid to be labeled unpatriotic, so she refused to stand up and do what is right.  If she had, she would have the nomination locked up right now.  The lack of courage shown by Clinton and other Democrats who supported Bush on this war has allowed this disaster to happen, because many of our elected officials are more worried about keeping their jobs rather than doing what is best for our nation.  Obama may not be an institutionalized Washingtonian, but at least he showed political courage when it counted, and that matters to me.  Experience is important, but it isn't everything.  The Bushies were supposed to be the most experienced political theorists and would run our government like a business, remember?  How did that work out?  It is more important to me to look at the decisions a person made when it mattered.  We need courage, not calculation.  Tact and strategy are important, but do we remember Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Kennedy for their calculation or their courage during difficult times?  While Obama was not in the Senate at the time, his refusal to support the war was still a risk since he was a candidate for the Senate, and it actually helped him win.  This is the whole problem with the pro-free trade, hawkish, DLC Dems:  They are too afraid to stand up for what is right, and so they get stomped on by Republicans in most presidential elections and they appear to be disingenuous.  All we need to do is remember the campaigns of Gore and Kerry to remember this and Clinton is just more of the same:  another good person who is afraid to be herself.  By the way, Bill Clinton's tenure as president may sound good compared to Bush's disaster, but we must still remember that he was not much of a progressive champion.  He neglected fair trade in favor of free trade, he signed the telecommunications act which allowed Fox News and Clear Channel to dominate our media, which helped make the case for war later on, and his moral indiscretions brought shame to his party and our nation.  Again, he was better than Bush, but it is time that we elect a leader with a vision that will make us viable in the 21st century, and Obama is the one who can do this.  We need a vision that unites us and makes us better.  We don't need to keep living the culture wars of the last 40 years.  We have made considerable progress, but there is so much to be done still.  Its time to move on into the 21st century at last.

Obama is the man! Go Obama go! Hillary you and Bill need to just retire and have Chelsea have some kids and become grandparents. It's time for a new generation to take over.

About the only thing I can see Obama has going for him is the false claim of Hillary voting to go to war in Iraq. This claim has been proven false time and again, and yet his supporters keep bringing it up. That will begin to hurt him in the future, although IMHO, Obama has ZERO chance of being elected POTUS in 08.

Hi,
I know..I know..we all know. He is really beating her on the head with this, isnt he? I am actually dissapointed in Clinton's team. They should have warned her before she made that "irresponsible and naive" statement. They didnt see they were pigeonholing themselves in between Obama and Bush and allowing themselves to be nailed as hawkish and neocons (but in a dress).
This lack of foresight in seeing beyond immiediate political gains comes back to the same question of "how the he** did you support invasion of Iraq?"
For all Bush-Cheney tough talk...as soon as they started talking to North Korea..see what happened, they shut down the nukes. We as America have the leverage (if just in the name!) to sit and discuss with anyone from anywhere in the world.
Will Ms Clinton wait till she sees the chinese in Venezuela b4 she talks to Chavez?

Throw the UN bums out.... oh wait, until we need them to save our stupid asses each time- right Dave?

Dealing with dictators???? Hmmm.. At least Hillary knows what hole her hubby dug when he shook hands with Slobodan Milosevic, (anyone remembers???) I can see Obama doing the same and we all will see the horrible things that come right after these mediocre acts.

Don’t you people have enough with presidents that know nothing of foreign policies??

Hillary Clinton showed a complete lack of political courage by supporting this war in the first place.  The evidence was there, but the debate never happened due to a media and political elite afraid of being called unpatriotic.  I don't care how much experience she has:  I will never, ever, forgive her and other complicit Democrats for that.  Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Kerry, Blitzer, Matthews, and the rest of the so-called experienced political and media figures can backpeddle all they want and claim that "we had no idea Bush would mislead us," but they missed the mark when it counted.  Where was our Thoreau?  Who would stand up for what they believed in because it was the right thing to do?  I think Obama's ability to make that decision when it mattered worth more than all the experience in the world.

If Hillary is so experienced and so ready to lead, why did she vote for the war?

People are taking Obama's statement too literally, and Clinton is trying to differentiate her approach. I believe Obama was trying to show he would be more open than Bush and willing to start building some bridges with other leaders.  That doesn't mean that he would have rushed off to see those leaders without preparation, including consultations with staff and State Department and some assessment of the overall conditions. Come on, people!

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):