Scarecrow reads like the voice of sanity on this.

The dispute lowers both candidates. I guess Republicans might find it delightful.

While I haven't followed this issue in detail, my take on this debate is that in fact Obama's answer was naive, and in fact Hillary's answer was simply reiterating what has been standard policy for many decades with respect to rogue, or close to rogue, regimes. I have to believe that Hillary was simply reflecting the sort of policies she knew were in place when Bill Clinton was President.

If that is true, I simply ask, why would we want suddenly to deviate from standard diplomatic maneuvers from before George W Bush's disastrous Presidency? Shouldn't we try instead to restore the pre-existing measured policies built up across Presidencies and decades?

Why would we want to answer the radicalism and deviancy of the Bush WH with another opposite radicalism and deviancy?

I just want my America back!

Well, we had the 'Bi-lateral vs. Multi-party talks with North Korea'
steel cage match between Kerry and Bush in 2004. Don't we just want a commitment to whatever policy that gets results? Does Clinton really think that President Obama would hop on a plane willy-nilly, without talking to the State Department first?

I tend to think we should keep talking to any country unless we're about to bomb them.

The difference to me comes in with Obama's overheated responses to Hillary on this. My basic comment is here.

Nothing much more to say on this from me.

The naivety is that of Clinton -- she remembers what this country was like in 1998 when her husband was running things in a mostly uni-polar world. 8 years of Bush have destoryed American power across the globe. Clinton's fault isn't that she is Bush Lite -- it is that she doesn't understand how bad off we are and how much we need a fresh start. Having the next president fly to Cuba or Caracas to deal with some minor dictators is exactly the message we need to be sending to the world that we are finally cleaning our house.

Question to Obama and his supporters: Would he have met with Botha during apartheid South Africa? Hilter in Nazi Germanay? Pol Pot in communist Cambodia? And if he wouldn't meet with those dictators, how can he justify meeting with the current Islamofascist dictators? Food for thought.

"It's rare to have a discussion about foreign policy that actually revolves around a concrete point"

Ugh. Both Clinton and Obama have spent the past 4 days distorting each other's positions, not actually debating a concrete foreign policy point.

As John Edwards said today:

If you're looking for what’s wrong in Washington, why the system is broken, why the system doesn’t work, one perfect example is what's been happening over the last four days. We’ve had two good people, Democratic candidates for president, who’ve spent their time attacking each other, instead of attacking the problems that this country’s faced.

I think Obama took the first punch because Hillary is out front. Watch the videos taken from their websites the next day. Also watch how Obama keeps trying to pull the fight to the Iraq run up.

It made no sense for Hillary to start the fight. She has a 15 point lead. Every day she keeps that 15 point lead is a good day. Obama needed to reinvigorate his campaign. He wasn't naive in taking the shot. Hillary decided to change the subject. If you really look at the so called difference, it is so thin as to be non-existent.

Here's what I wrote elsewhere:

Hillary Clinton is trying to get elected president. There are a lot of people in this country, not just you and me. Some people are not as smart as us, some people are capable of seeing the world only more simply, and some are real hard-nosed law-and-order people. They’re always thinking, maybe one of the easiest ways to make the world better is just find all the badguys, round ‘em all up, and stop them, and don’t let anything- any formalities or technicalities- stand in the way of that. It’s really hard to win people over who see things this way, because it seems real simple and they see us as standing in the way of this. But we should not be, and they should see us for what we are- for making it as easy as possible to get the real badguys, and as hard as possible to fuck with, or make a mistake and bother, innocent people. Right now, they just think we care about making it hard to get the badguys caught when a practical approach can lead to catching them. Hillary is saying to these people, “Hey, don’t work against me, and when the general election comes, take me seriously. I’m not saying one thing for the general, and it’s different than what I said in the primaries.” She’s showing them all that she’s not some parody of a liberal fangirl who’s just going to gladly rush into the arms of any dictator who calls himself a socialist and gush over him.

We can do everything these people want to do as far as fighting terrorism better than they could. But right now they see as a bunch of klutzy, falling-all-over-themselves morons. It may be futile, and I’m nost suggesting that it is, but I understand what Hillary is trying to do, and I think if you do, too, it’s hard not to respect it.

As a committed Republican, I would welcome any debate by the Dems about what our foreign policy should be following Bush. Because it would force the candidates to be serious and to carefully think before speaking, instead of pandering like they can do on domestic policy issues. (GOP candidates included)

As this dustup following Obama's answer to a single question shows simply playing to the crowd on foreign policy questions, which is what I believe he was doing, will come back to bite you in the ass. If not during the primaries, then certainly by the other party's candidate during the general election.

So in the immortal words of W himself, "Bring this debate on."

I like what Barack said here...

So I reject the notion that the American moment has passed. I dismiss the cynics who say that this new century cannot be another when, in the words of President Franklin Roosevelt, we lead the world in battling immediate evils and promoting the ultimate good.

I still believe that America is the last, best hope of Earth. We just have to show the world why this is so. This President may occupy the White House, but for the last six years the position of leader of the free world has remained open. And it’s time to fill that role once more.

To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war.

Obams has been criticised in prior debates for not being able to express himself in the quick soundbites allowed. Here he tried to pack a lot of information in a short blurb and maybe missed some magic qualifier that Ms. Clinton jumped on. I agree that Obama's misstatement - if any - was de minimus and Clinton's broadside response was a tactical error on her part. Obama's best answer would be to say he'd like to appoint Bill as UN ambassador, and allow him to jockey around the world dealing with all these third world coconuts.

I think that Clinton has shown her true colors here. Instead of saying I disagree with that policy she lays down a shrill attack on Obama that in reality goes to the level of name calling. Calling another candidate naive is akin to saying that he's childish and not a serious candidate.

Calling another candidate naive is akin to saying that he's childish and not a serious candidate.

Gee, that's almost like politics.

Thanks for that quote, RSM, I was not aware of it. I've mentioned before that Obama is the only Democrat in a long time I would be willing to vote for, as opposed to voting against the other guy, and this kind of statement reinforces that instinct. If he would just promise to appoint middle of the road judges he'd have my vote in an instant.

This is really a "tempest in a teapot" with not a lot of difference betwixed the two. It actually reminds me of the Kennedy-Nixon debate... Qumoy & Matsu. This is, however, a presidential campaign.
If you were called "naive" and didn't respond you'd be thought a "wuss". Barack is no "wuss" and Hillary missjudged the issue. She wanted to take a cheap shot and it blew up in her face.

clem wrote: The dispute lowers both candidates. I guess Republicans might find it delightful.

I don't see the debate as hurting Hillary. From my Republican POV Obama made a naive comment and Hillary rightly called him on it.

'The essence of diplomacy is being able to tell someone to go to Hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip."
--Winston Churchill

please - it's not about policy, about the pros and cons of talking, which is only a point of contention because of the disaster of Bush and no one really expects the next prez to fuck up so badly no matter who it is - it's rather about agendas: is Obama too much of a lefty or is his 'audacity of hope' crap just rhetoric? will he be beholden to the far left if he gets the nomination? can a far left politician win anymore in America even with Bush having set the table so nicely? The 'talk' argument is not about foreign policy details per se - it's about Hillary the 'realist' vs Obama the possible fantasist.

I've been watching this since this first started on Monday night. My take is this: Obama made a serious mistake in his original answer and Clinton did what one is supposed to do in a debate and nailed him for it. The problem with Obama's response is that he equated the Presidency/HoS meetings with all diplomacy, and that is a mistake. Clinton has not been saying not to talk to these nations, just that it would not be wise to do HoS to HoS level meetings off the bat without preconditions. Why not send first the Sec of State to make sure there will be more than simple propaganda value for each side in having such a meeting? If Obama had not made his answer Head of State to Head of State right from the outset without precondition or pre-negotiation he would have been fine, and now that he is caught in it he is wiggling madly (as are his spokespeople from what I've seen from them on the idiot box) to try to cloud that, which since it is the actual point of contention strikes me as dishonest. Clinton is not saying not to talk to these regimes, just not at the top level right off the bat because of the obvious propaganda potentials for those leaders (see, I met with the President, therefore I am not as dangerous/radical as has been claimed, that sort of thing).

Obama did show naiveté/inexperience with this answer, and Hillary Clinton was correct. I might add that this protocol regarding HoS to HoS that she is espousing is one not just consistent with American policy but her traditional allies as well. That's my take on it.

Oh yes, for the candidate that claimed he would not be using character smears to brand Clinton as Bush/Cheney lite in his responses to this illustrates that he knows he is wrong by using such extreme rhetoric as well as shows that for all his words and promises of a vision only of hope and not fear based politics when push comes to shove he will use the tools of the politics of fear. I'd say Obama has done himself some real damage this week both in his initial mistake and then in the way he has tried to defend/cover it up.

E.J. Dionne put it well today in the WaPo: "Defining Moment".

In these parlous times, Dionne argues, the candidate who gets identified as the agent for change wins.

Obama's "Bush-Cheney lite" counterpunch to Hillary was devasting IMHO. She may be a woman (and therefore, she suggests, an agent for some kind of change) but Obama is saying she's no different from the boys we've got in charge now.

The challenge for Edwards, who is also staking out a change candidacy, is to argue that his change is better than Obama's.

It's a good development for the Dems.

chicounsel: "So in the immortal words of W himself, "Bring this debate on."

You mean the immoral words -- which, of course, you are paraphrasing here. One thing W has never in his life invited was debate. Coke, hookers, war, death, corruption, sure. But open discussion? Fuggedaboudit.

I think the three most important things we must take away from this discussion are:

1. Hillary is the conservative here, the status-quo preservation, the business-as-usual candidate. That's her stated policy. She's not hiding that.

2. Hillary also shows that she is willing to use clever, but dishonest tactics to misrepresent her opponents' view. Thats what the other side does. While this shows that Hillary is tough enough to fight the Karl Roves of the world on their own terms - it also shows that she's not going to try to change American Politics much. (which is probably why the media loves her - because they love the controversy and mudslinging - which is why they work so hard to make sure it happens).

3. Obama's response shows that he has the courage to stand up for his radical view of CHANGE for America. He's willing to speak the truth - and that, in my opinion, is a far more valuable tool for fighting the Karl Roves of the world, than Hillary's clever lies. Hillary is following the same tired path that got the Democrats in the position they're in today. They can't confront the Karl Rove slime machine, and the dirty Republicans, because most of them are Dirty themselves. Obama is clean, and honest, and that, my friends, is STRENGTH.

Yes, his answer to Gravel's paranoid accusation was actually pretty weak, and to that, I attribute his inexperience. But I really do think that Obama's our last best hope for change in this country.

Thanks for that quote, RSM

Sen. Clinton borrows a Republican talking point to make a swipe at Sen. Obama and the Republican talking point parrots side with Obama. Bizarre.

The proper answer to the question should have been the nations in question are not baddies and it always enriches the US and its people to enter into cooperative, mutually rewarding relationships with all other nations, even those that oppose the most kleptomaniac aspects of our country's policies.

Well, it's revealing, but not so much about foreing policy.

Calling Hillary Bush/Cheney lite doesn't reflect well on Obama. And I see today a headline where he's talking about wanting to bring unity to America.

He's all over the map.

Chicounsel: "As this dustup following Obama's answer to a single question shows simply playing to the crowd on foreign policy questions, which is what I believe he was doing, will come back to bite you in the ass."

I'm sorry. For a second there I thought I heard a committed Republican complaining about a candidate playing to the crowd. I must've been wrong, though, because Republican candidates are above that kind of stuff. They don't unfurl Mission Accomplished banners for poorly advised photo ops. They don't sprinkle their public comments with redmeat phrases like "Bring 'em on." And they certainly don't live out -- for all the world to see -- adolescent fantasies about being a top gun pilot.

I think you can shut up now.

What is it with all these "Hillary was dishonest" posts? Even if you dont agree with what she said, her criticism of Obama was pretty coherent. I happen to agree with her, the US HAS to be extra careful in how it conducts it's diplomacy precisely because of the irresponsability of Bush-Cheney. In the best of cases, Obama was unclear in his answer. And she totally nailed him for it. If you want to cry foul, take it up with him for wanting to have his cake and eat it too.

- - Hillary took that shot, because she got the RESPONSE in the debate, she knew Obama would not have the chance to rebut. It was her INSTINCT to try to use that opportunity to slam his inexperience. It was her INSTINCT to lie.

Edwards' cowardly "me-too" response was similarly telling.

Hillary has to drop the neo-con line. Points to Obama for using sanity on this.

GO HILLARY! She will be the next President with Bill right by her side then she can start cleaning up this fucking mess caused by this current administration of LIARS and THEIVES.

I think this whole line of gibberish could be avoided if we had real debates, instead of joint photo ops, in this country -- why won't the top tier candidates do this? Why doesn't the Dem base demand it? On my side I'm sure Newt and probably Fred Thompson would agree to it - stuffed shirts like Romney would probably follow the Dem example and cut 'n run.

What is it with all these "Hillary was dishonest" posts? Even if you dont agree with what she said, her criticism of Obama was pretty coherent. I happen to agree with her, the US HAS to be extra careful in how it conducts it's diplomacy precisely because of the irresponsability of Bush-Cheney. ...
Posted by: bluemonkey on July 27, 2007 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

That's BS.

It was the equivalent of Obama saying;
"Yes, I would drive my hybrid car to work - "
and Hillary saying;
"Well, that's pretty naive of you to not fasten your seatbelts or check your rearview mirror first!"

It was a low blow. She pulled it off, because she knew she had the advantage in the answer. She did it, because she wanted to leverage her strength, she perceived she was slipping - she did that out of fear. And when she was afraid - she LIED.

It was not a huge lie. It was a very small, very forgivable lie. But I think it illustrates a very important character point - in comparison to Obama. And it reinforces what a lot of people say about her, that she's an opportunist, a compromiser, and a triangulator.

I think this pseudo-debate is massively silly. But HRC didn't speak to the idea that "the United States should, as a routine part of its foreign policy, say that it's willing to talk to any country that's willing to talk to us." The question concerned presidential-level meetings, not nation-to-nation diplomacy.

I think this whole thing is silly because I see no sign that there's any disagreement involved here. It all concerns something said in a forum. It doesn't concern what anyone meant or what anyone would actually do.

Osama,

No lie there. Like I said, in the best of cases Obama was unclear in his answer. HIS fault, not hers. And IF what he meant was that he would meet AFTER preparing the diplomatic groundwork, then HE lied by saying she is Bush/Cheney light (wouldn´t he be also if he meant what you say he did?). I repeat, he is trying to have his cake and eat it too.

Meanwhile, Senator Clinton moves ahead not only in her presidential campaign but in her duties to the nation.

She scored a big win this week when Defense Secretary Robert Gates assured her that the Pentagon is working on contingency plans for withdrawal from Iraq, that he would advise her and others interested as the plans progress and that he welcomed her interest and that of the Congress.

Interestingly, Gates dodged mention of the nasty letter from the Pentagon's Eric Edelman that criticized Senator Clintron for her interest. The fate of Edelman is anyone's guess now with his boss firmly in the Clinton camp on the matter.

(Makes Obama look the petulant and rank amateur that he is, among other things.)

QUOTE:

GATES ASSURES CLINTON OF DRAWDOWN PLANS
by Thomas E. Ricks and Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, July 27, 2007; Page A08

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said he is personally engaged in developing contingency plans for a drawdown of U.S. troops from Iraq and emphasized that those efforts constitute a "priority" for the Pentagon.

"Such planning is indeed taking place with my active involvement as well as that of senior military and civilian officials and our commanders in the field," Gates said in a letter to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.). Such preparation for a troop reduction, he said, "is not only appropriate, but essential."

His letter -- delivered by courier to Clinton's office on Wednesday evening -- sought to smooth over a series of tense exchanges between the Democratic presidential front-runner and the Pentagon. After Clinton wrote to Gates in May requesting a briefing on plans for a troop withdrawal, Pentagon policy chief Eric S. Edelman responded with a letter last week accusing her of reinforcing "enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies" by discussing a timetable for withdrawal. Edelman, a career diplomat, moved in 2005 to the Pentagon from the office of Vice President Cheney.

After Edelman's letter, Clinton and Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) announced that they would introduce legislation requiring the Pentagon to brief Congress on drawdown planning. "They're looking for any kind of briefing, report, answer -- whatever you want to call it -- from the Pentagon that this is happening," said Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines.

END QUOTE

He was being terse.
And acceptably so.

When he said "it's ridiculous to think that there wouldn't be low-level vetting first" - that's what's meant. He's only got a limited time to make an answer - do you want him to describe how he's going to tie his shoelaces first?

He adequately made his point that the Bush policies of being a passive-aggressive spoiled child about North Korea gave us North Korean Nukes, and that HE would not continue such policies.

Clinton tried to twist his omission into a cheap shot.

Sooooo..... What he REALLY wanted to say was what she DID say... and somehow SHE is Bush/Cheney light and he is an "agent of change"... Well I'd rather go with the candidate that got it right the first time around.

P.S. May I remind you too that she was being "terse" too, but managed to explain her position adequately.

Might I add that Hillary Clinton also is making a lot of Obama bloggers look like the petulant and rank amateurs that they are? Yes indeed.

P.S. May I remind you too that she was being "terse" too, but managed to explain her position adequately.
Posted by: bluemonkey on July 27, 2007 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINK

She focussed on a needless detail, in order to dishonestly portray Obama as someone who would ignore such a detail. It was a clever tactical move in a debate. It had nothing at all to do with actual policy. I doubt even SHE believed what she said.

She got it right, because she got the luck of the draw, and answered second.

Yes, it's a pseudo-debate and Obama and Hillary agree, kind of.

But it's Friday, and we're now talking about how Hillary flotched it after the Monday debate with a gratuitously cheap shot delivered in all its chilly glory. And Obama got indignant and fought back.

The indignant candidate wins these encounters. I think that's what Dionne was kind of getting at. Indignation taps in to our anger.

Osama,

You prove that your excuse for his "omission" is, in your words, BS. In more or less the same short time that he had (and which according to you, was not enopugh for him to say what he REALLY thought) Hillary a) explained her position clearly and b) had time to criticize his position.

So, clearly, time was not the issue. If Obama were being sincere in all this he would have acknowledged his mistake, calrified his position and moved on. THAT would have made Hillary's criticisms of him look crude. But he didn't, she judged him right.

NOW he is trying to say that what he really meant to say was what she said and that by saying that she proves she is Bush/Cheney light but that when HE says it it proves he is not naive.

It is definitely am argumentative pretzel. He should just drop it. He IS looking not-so-ready-for-prime-time.

Well, as I have picked another candidate, let those two - neither of whom I have any real faith in - tear one another to shreds and let the best resume move on up to the top tier where he belongs.

The reason this is important is that it suggests Obama is not ready (yet) for prime time. Imagine if he'd said the same thing fourteen months from now in a debate with Mitt Romney. He'd get excoriated.

If Obama were being sincere in all this he would have acknowledged his mistake, calrified his position and moved on.

He didn't make a mistake. He answered the question.

Hillary listened to his answer - she had that tactical advantage. Obama did not have the advantage of knowing how Hillary was going to answer, because he had to answer first.

After Hillary's answer, it was Edwards' turn (for his feeble me-too response - I think he was shocked by Hillary's attack on Obama, that he wasn't able to compose an original answer).

Obama didn't get a second chance to respond to Hillary, within the debate. He lost that point, technically, due to what was Hillary's more skillful use of debate tactics, and the luck she had in answering THAT question second.

However, if you look beyond what was technically said, and reflect on Obama's intent - which was the questioner's intent - "is this policy going to change." - Obama answered it, concisely, and truthfully, with courage.

In fact - after that, he let it slide. Until Hillary's people saw this as an opening, and went on the attack with that letter. Then, Obama HAD to respond. And I think his response was appropriate, well measured, and directly ON TARGET. Hillary's policy is no different than Bush/Cheney's - if she's going to withhold talks out of some fear of being used for propaganda. . . which, in the converse, is the same as losing the ability to use the NOT TALKING as DOMESTIC PROPAGANDA.
I think being used as propaganda is a very small price to pay - compared to the propaganda of a successful fucking NUCLEAR TEST!!!

Obama fights with truth.
Clinton fights with slime.

She focussed on a needless detail, in order to dishonestly portray Obama as someone who would ignore such a detail. It was a clever tactical move in a debate. It had nothing at all to do with actual policy.

The problem is, it just wasn't a detail. Knowing and following the correct policy in diplomatic matters such as this is no small matter. Had Obama more experience and better judgment about how foreign policy is handled, he would instinctively know that he should qualify his answer. He did not qualify his answer.

Hillary obviously had a much better sense of how such things should be dealt with, and was able to seize on the correct response, and to correct Obama's response.

Now, maybe Obama would learn what he needs to learn and would do what he needs to do. But his answer was indeed seriously naive.

But what I don't like about what Obama has said since is that he has instead tried to present his views as, in fact, substantially different from what Hillary suggested. Thing is, all Hillary suggested was that the standard American policies from before Bush be instated.

It does not in any way make me feel good about Obama if he is willing to introduce potentially radical changes in foreign policy simply because he wants to avoid losing a political debate. It makes him look like someone who will do or say most anything to get ahead politically.

Osama,

You are repeating the exact same lie the Obama camp is using. Hillary NEVER said that she would never meet them. She said she wouldn't rush into ir, particularly in her first year as President. She showed caution (good for diplomacy all around I gather) a caution he did not show in his anser (whatever excuses you may make up for him).

But suddenly you say she would NEVER meet with heads of state from countries with deep diplomatic differences with the US.

Too cute.

But a lie too. And you (and the Obama camp) know it.

And he is supposed to be the squeaky clean one. Meh...

Sen. Barack Obama is in urgent need to define himself beyond the glittering generalities he has heretofore offered on the campaign trail. Sen. Hillary Clinton saw and took the opportunity to define her primary challenger as a work in progress, and thus not quite ready for prime time.

Continuing this argument beyond the debate only sharpens the experience differential between the two candidates in a manner that will continue to benefit Mrs. Clinton.

Therefore, Barack Obama now needs to break off this particular engagement, and seek to change the subject and move to a battleground more to his liking nd favor.

He did not qualify his answer.

There was no need to, until Hillary made what should have been a non-issue into an issue.

Hillary obviously had a much better sense of how such things should be dealt with,

She had a sense of how to stab her opponent in the back. . . and I have given her credit for being a fighter, but I give Obama equal credit for fighting his opponent. Face-to-face.

But suddenly you say she would NEVER meet with heads of state from countries with deep diplomatic differences with the US.

I didn't say that either. I can see how you took that from what I said.

It's about how both candidates portrayed their instinct towards diplomatic matters. To paint it in its most basic, simple, light:

Hillary's instinct is to hold back.
Maybe there will be cases where she will quickly, decisively speak with a foreign head of state.
Maybe there will be cases where upon deeper examination (which she claims Obama would not do) - she decides it's better off to maneuver and delay; (the fact is, in the case of both Iran and North Korea - this is precisely what Bush did. He refused to talk, until it was too late, and THEN he talked - worst of both worlds - this is the policy Hillary will perpetuate).
And then, there will be the inevitable cases where Hillary will feel that she would have too much to lose politically, domestically, by allowing a foreign head of state gain politically by talks. (and in these cases, when the guy eventually succeeds in building nukes, she'll have no choice - just like Bush/Cheney).

Obama's instinct is to be open - to regain America's moral leadership in the world. If a foreign head of state makes hay over a visit, so damn what? As long as we get what WE want - who cares if it makes Obama look foolish. A leader should be strong enough to be willing to sacrifice his or her domestic political appearance, for the greater good. Bush's insecurity, and passive-aggressive approach to North Korea gave us North Korean nukes. Who is Hillary Clinton going to enable, I wonder?

osama_been_forgotten: "Who is Hillary Clinton going to enable, I wonder?"

I wouldn't begin to speculate and then offer such conjecture as an inevitability. Who did her husband enable?

Given the extent of damage that has been done by the Bush regime to our foreign policy and overseas reputation, I've long since concluded that we need people in there with considerable experience to immediately commence the necessary repairs upon assumption of office.

In that regard, and given what i've heard from him thus far, I believe that Obama as president -- as well as his inner circle -- would require extensive on-the-job training. Now, this would have been all right if this was 1992, and no storm system clouded our national horizons. But it's not 1992, it's 2007 and we're finding ourselves in a world of shit. All good intentions aside, naivete definitely won't cut it.

That being said, I would certainly hope that there would be a place for Sen. Obama in a new Clinton administration, perhaps even as vice president. He may be a work in progress, but it's a work that holds enormous potential for future greatness, given the right political mentors -- such as, let's say, Bill and Hillary Clinton.

On the job training would assume that one wishes to do the job as it's been done before...

It is my understanding that Obama believes a fundamental change needs to be made in how we present ourselves to the world...

I agree with him...

And please do tell how successful Mr. Clinton's foreign policy was such a raging success?

Barack Obama - Copacabana! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYJbKZlwM5s

This may be the best thing to happen to the Edwards campaign.

If we did talk to Hitler, warn him, let him know that we knew what he was doing----maybe all tose millions of people would have lived. So, Obama could be right. Look at a possible peace between Isreal and palestine! Why? because we talked to them. So clinton wants you to believe the same old same old is the way to go. I say we need to listen to the guy who wants change to come to washington, and restore the good well we used to have around the world. Think about it!