Did anyone else notice how Edwards wound up his answer on that subject by referring to the aforementioned world leaders as "bad leaders?" He was such a dick that night.

Obama punches himself out.

His latest wild swing asserts that if Bush's foreign policy includes preconditions on certain diplomatic encounters, and Clinton's foreign policy would include preconditions on certain diplomatic encounters, they are the same policy.

That's indefensibly loopy reasoning, and it'll come back to bite him over and over.

Obama is hurt, he's on the ropes, he's seeing double, and he either gets wise and cover up ... or gets saved by the bell ... or goes down swinging at shadows.

Woo! Good recovery Obama. I hope the two can go back to being fairly hands off. I'd rather the dems didn't tear each other down too much at this stage because the best ticket has two of the three frontrunners as candidate & running mate, and too much of this will hurt the campaign.
After the primaries is where the serious punches belong.
-

Interesting contrast between RonK's post and mine... It shows people will see what they want to see from these quotes and that the reality is probably that nothing decisive has happened at all.
-

Clinton didn't say that she wouldn't meet with those leaders. She just wouldn't vow to meet with certain world leaders in her first year in office, which Obama did. That said, I think both of them have done a good job of capitalizing on a pretty minor difference to get headlines.

Obama: Change. Change. Change. Hope. Hope. Hope. Faith. Faith. Faith. Change. Change. Change. Hope. Hope. Hope. Faith. Faith. Faith. Change. Change. Change. Hope. Hope. Hope. Faith. Faith. Faith.

Yawn.

I agree w/ christopher's hope that Ds go back to punchings Rs instead of each other, though. Like going after that fucker Gonzales.

@6 - at least he is change.

but I agree with U and christopher on that. now that Rove's coming in to speak under OATH.

RonK got it exactly right. Basically, Obama had a good answer. Clinton had a better answer, and now Obama is trying to be all, "Well, you knew I meant what Clinton said!"

I like Obama well enough, but when I met him at a fundraiser, he said that he felt he had foreign policy experience because he had lived in a bunch of different places internationally and you know... had international experiences. I'm obviously paraphrasing, but that was the general gist. A lot of people were impressed, but frankly, I didn't think it was an acceptable answer.

Experience is over-rated as hell. It's obvious as shit all these dems are heavily compromised by corporate sponsors, and Hillary has a record of kowtowing to the right wing when it's politically expedient. So y'know, as much as I'm inclined to say things supportive of her just because america hates her so bad and I think it's unfair, Fuck that noise. Obama said no to war when it counted and that counts for a FUCKING LOT. I don't have decades of experience in the government and I knew Iraq was a big mistake back then. Hillary and company can dissemble all they want, but they've shown their stripes on that one. I'm willing to take a chance on less experience if there's some evidence of daring to do the RIGHT thing even if it isn't politically prudent.

I've never put much stock in the "inexperienced" tag. Obama has a cosmopolitan backstory, and undergrad major in International Relations from a good school, an evident maturity beyond his years, and as much hands-on foreign policy experience as most the median presidential aspirant (i.e., none).

Unfortunately, he has now exposed gaping holes in his grasp of short-answer campaign format, diplomatic symbolism and substance, and campaign counterpunching. He's further alienated both people who have experience and people who value experience (who were previously willing to cut him enough slack). He's shown he hasn't given adequate thought to things he will and won't do as President in the critical first year of his term. he given the opposing party great ad material. He's still adding to the inventory of things he's said that he can't defend except by going farther out on the limb of attack -- none of which works with his dominant theme of new cooperative politics.

What does he do for an encore -- accuse Hillary of running a dog-fighting ring in W.Va.?

RonK @10:

Unfortunately, he has now exposed gaping holes in his grasp of short-answer campaign format, diplomatic symbolism and substance, and campaign counterpunching. He's further alienated both people who have experience and people who value experience (who were previously willing to cut him enough slack). He's shown he hasn't given adequate thought to things he will and won't do as President in the critical first year of his term. he given the opposing party great ad material. He's still adding to the inventory of things he's said that he can't defend except by going farther out on the limb of attack -- none of which works with his dominant theme of new cooperative politics.

RonK, this is such an impressive display of spin, you really ought to go to work for the Clinton campaign, if you aren't already working for the Clinton campaign. What's especially impressive is that you managed to savage Obama without once mentioning where he or anyone else stands on any actual issues that might affect anyone.

Not that there's anything wrong with this. I mean, judging debates according to who came out looking good rather than who stood for what gave us eight years of George W. Bush. I mean that one debate in 2000 exposed Al Gore to be a stiff, eye-rolling, loud-sighing contemptuous dweeb. Obviously not presidential material.

I haven't been following the debates, so I'm not qualified to say anything about who is winning on those grounds, but I am confident in my assessment of the American people enough to say Barack would have to eat a baby sandwich and shoot heroin into the pope while giving AIDs to a geriatric chimpanzee with his penis to get fewer votes than Hillary. Elections aren't about debate winners, or we'd have President Kerry right now.
-

cressona -- Obama had been my favorite up to now. I have hectored and harangued and facilitated to get people out to see him, and I've twisted arms and debated to get people to take him seriously.

Now I suspect he's undone himself in short order, in a cascade of unforced errors.

Back it up Ron... You say he's been your man until recently, so that lends you some credibility. But on the subject of this thread- on this particular "gaffe," the American people can read its results either way so it doesn't read as a misstep. Were his other mistakes worse? I'd rather not have to do my homework. Sum them up for us, if you don't mind.

RonK @13, I continue to be truly impressed. Again you manage to utterly trash Obama without mentioning any actual issues or even offering an explanation for what caused you to drop your support for him.

christopher @14, RonK here is just skillfully using a classic political ploy that's been very popular especially in Seattle. "I've been a supporter of so-and-so until so-and-so did such-and-such." Usually such-and-such is actually something, not some imaginary faux pas that you'd have to be an opponent to begin with to even recognize it as a faux pas. For this, I give RonK a few points for sheer chutzpah.

This particular technique was very popular among monorail foes. Every campaign they would drag someone out to say, "I voted for the monorail every time, but I'm not voting for it now." You'd figure this pool of individuals would keep shrinking with every campaign, and yet they consistently managed to find bunches of them as spokespeople.

So far you are more convincing than RonK, but maybe you're only getting points for persistence because he quit checking this thread or didn't feel liking backing himself up. But either way, you win. Congrats!
-

"feel liking backing"? I've been doing this crap all day. Blech. Later y'all.
-

christopher -- Obama hardly ever set a rhetorical foot wrong up to now ... and when he or his campaign did (D-Punjab), he quickly maneuvered back to poised positions, so none of them became really memorable missteps.

He could have done so on this one, in 25 words or less, along lines suggested by his spinmeister (Axelrod). Or he could have left the low road to his surrogates, and later taken the high road and disowned the worst of it.

But he didn't. He lobbed a dirty line in person, and amplified it in person, and now he's hung out to dry.

It continues to baffle me that the same people who are saying "Hillary would be great because she's so experienced," are the ones also saying "Obama doesn't have enough experience."

Hasn't she been in the Senate, oh, four more years than him? So, two years: not enough experience; six years: OODLES!

Hmmm - Thought I'd given a decent outline of the problem, and cressona even blockquoted it. Accusing me of bad faith? Won't affect the outcome.

I see Axelrod is on air pushing it further, apparently distancing himself from his own post-debate damage control effort, so this is strategy -- not misadventure. Severe blunder, and likely a terminal error.

@9,

Yep. Also, keep in mind that much political "experience" is actually in fundraising and placating/advocating for big donors, not in enacting real policies to help real people.