Person who asked candidates if they would meet with foreign dictators does not agree with Hillary

and did not like her answer to the question. He said that he liked Obama's answer to Anderson right now. To be fair - we don't know if Obama does have a set of conditions before meeting, but in the debate, he said he would meet with them unlike Bush Admin.

Hillary is always afraid to commit, unless the political winds are blowing in the right direction. She didn't want to commit to something that the special interests might object to such as meeting with Iran or Cuba. The USA has become a puppet to other interests. We need a leader and President that will do what America needs, not what the special outside interests believe. We saw that influence in action when the Iraq Study Commission was rejected.

Her answer was that she would not commit to meeting with each of the foreign leaders who were named in the question (which I thought was smart even before she expanded on it -- why make a promise like that, that you may not be able to keep?). Then she explained that there would have to be groundwork, that she'd have to make sure the meeting would not be used for propaganda purposes, etc.

Now, then she went on to make snarky noises about Fidel Castro and (I think) Hugo Chavez -- which I could have definitely done without. But still -- I did not hear her say she wouldn't meet with any of them in her first year, she just would not commit to meeting with all of them, and went on to point out some of the pitfalls that would have to be dealt with.

She would send envoys to meet with representatives of those governments first to gauge how serious they were about improving relations and to avoid being used for propaganda purposes.

As usual, she was the grown up in the room.

leaders, but would send high level administration officials to meet with them first to find out what direction they were headed in. She didn't believe that a President should put themselves in the position of being used as propaganda. I agree with her.

that`s the problem in this issue.

She mentioned, specifically, the rulers of Iran, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela.

last i looked both leaders were elected by popular vote. given iran is run by the same type of people who run this country and even the same type of clown as an "elected" president. i thought that chavez was elected,almost overthrown by the usa , he is not a dictator yet. what about all our good friends who could be described as certainly anti-democratic..that list is longer than the new axis of evil.

but those are the countries she mentioned.

In fact, I thought it was her best moment of the night. If that question came from a journalist and Obama gave the same answer ("I'll talk to them without pre-conditions" in so many words), Team Clinton would be jumping all over him for it. It's a little trickier when the questioner is an ordinary citizen who doesn't like your answer. I expect them to try and make something of it anyway, like they did on Obama's wordy first-response answer in an earlier debate.

I guess what he wanted to hear was that the candidate would not be like Shrub and state "we don't talk to terrorists", but what do you think?

have some lower-level people explore the situation before the President gets involved, make sure it's not a publicity stunt in-the-making that will make us look bad, etc. BushCo doesn't even take that step most of the time.

He just said that he would meet them, and then explained that he wouldn't be like Bush has been. In no way did he say how or when he would do it. I'm surprised that so many, including you, act like Hillary was "right" and Obama was "wrong/inexperienced" on this question.

Obama said, "yes." He did not specifically add "without pre-conditions," but his answer could (and probably will) be spun against him because Team Clinton doesn't have anything else to work with vs. Obama this evening. I'm sure he'll be more thorough next time.

people who disagrees with her. He wanted to know if they would be unlike Bush not wanting to meet with enemies.

I can't believe that so many people are trying to make this a Hillary "more experienced" than Obama moment; when he clearly was not saying the opposite of her. She answered well, but it wasn't in disagreement to his argument/answer.

"yes" answer...wow

Obama answered first, then Clinton. He gave a good answer. She had a chance to listen to it, do some quick thinking, and improve on it.

In opposite order it might have been different.

Don't put so damned much weight into exact wording and parsing sentences in these things. Try to figure out who is smart and has their heart in the right place. So far I think they all pass that test. Just differences in style and the details.


I do think Richardson annd Kucinich may have dug themselves in on getting all troops out overnight. Biden is right on how long it would take if you started today. But realistically, they would find that out soon enough. The DESIRE to get out and commitment to doing it is more important than predicting the date the last one will leave.