Obama makes a good point: Hillary isn't much different than Bush. Time for change. Time for Obama.

Another lame attack by Obama. How about he just admit that he was wrong, and that having a cocktail with the worst leaders of the world was a bad idea. His she voted to allow war line is getting old. The towers had been bombed, America was in a frenzy, he would of done the same. Its Hillary in 08, Obama should pray he gets to be VP.

That's just it, Obama can say he was against the war all along...very convienant considering he did not actually have cast a vote on the spending for the war in the first place. Hind sight is 20/20, so it's easy to posture himself saying he was against it from the begining. Since he never actually had to make that decision.

Hillary is still backing Bush, even if she thinks she's not. Obama has been against this war since it's inception; other democratic candidates have apologized for their pro-war votes, but to date, Mrs. Clinton has not. There is absolutely no reason to believe, that if she were elected, she would not continue the arrogant stance the current administration has. Maybe Obama is somewhat naive, but at least he has gotten it right on the war,and his is a fresh new approach toward diplomacy. After all, look what aintaining "status quo" has gotten us so far!

Hillary actually lost my vote on this one. She did say earlier in her campaign that she was against the policy of "no talk" diplomacy.The question was would you be wiling to meet with these leaders in the first year of the presidency...she said NO. What if it meant world peace? Would she still say no? Her answer was pigheaded and Bushesque.

Yikes! Obama is really hitting Hillary where it hurts. Hillary is weak on foreign policy. She has avoided the big foreign policy fights all of her life. Now she is trying to stand up and be strong. I don't know if she has the personal strength to do it. Hillary probably thought that she got the best of Obama with her "naive and irresponsible" comment. She certainly never envisioned that Obama would push back so forcefully. The political race for voters is over. The political contest for the presidency has begun. Watch the polls fluctuate in the coming months. Just when you thought the negatives were at an all-time high... We are about to learn things about Hillary and Obama that will make everyone cringe. Steel has always been made with hammers and fire.

I would say, "don't burn bridges."

The thing is-Democrats want diplomacy, Hillary herself has said over and over that Bush should be engaged in diplomacy. Democrats will not nominate her if refuses to engage in diplomacy-and refuses to be held accountable on the war. HILLARY IS A FLIP-FLOPPER ON DIPLOMACY!

They should start working together instead of attacking each other. Their top priority should be winning 2008 and get rid of the Bush nightmare.

more positions than a kama-sutra teacher? i reckon obama has more

What is Obama trying to prove? You make your point then you move on. It's been three days. He needs to move on and try to do the things he was elected to do. In fact, he should try to do more for the people than attacking others. OLD NEWS...OBAMA, get a life.

Ken,

I think Obama does have something to prove. He need to show the differences between him and Hillary, this is clearly a difference. We can't wait for "high level envoys" to "test the waters". Does Hillary realize some of the countries named in the question from the you-tube debate have nuclear weapons or perusing nuclear weapons. Her way is just more of the same.

Hillary is simply a Bush Lite. Go Obama!

No due diligence before Air Force One lands in Havana or Tehran? That is equally as stupid as the legislative branch ceding its Constitutional authority to declare war to the Executive branch as it did in 2003. Obama would benefit from slowing down and thinking before shooting off an answer he thinks will please the crowd.

Cheers to Sen. Clinton for giving the smarter, less popular answer. Glad she's learning from previous mistakes.

Unfortunately, Obama's inexperience and naivete are showing. I, personally, don't believe we can afford either in our next president. The next president will have a lot of big messes to clean up. Obama, some day your time will come. Get some experience, pay your dues and relax. You are a young man. Plenty of time for you to make your mark.

I don't know if I will vote for Obama but no way will I vote for Clinton. No matter what she says she is still part of the Old Guard and that equates to "same group, same ideology, different face". Clinton implies that he is too green and not ready for the job. Hillary and her kind are overripe and thisclose to falling off the vine. I for one would like to hear some new ideas and maybe a different approach to some of our problems. The current crop of career politicians seem more interested in maintaining the status quo. We don't need to gut our constitution, abandon our way of life or give in to those that would destroy us. We do need to address some of the issues that other countries have with us. I have a feeling that the Cuban impass could have been solved years ago if we could move the Old Guard out of the way and try a different approach.

I guess Barak can't admit when he's wrong, as he was in his comment at the debate, and isn't smart enough to stop attacking fellow Democrats. Not quite the qualities I look for in a Presidential candidate. I suggest you start focusing on more important things Mr. Obama.

Barak Obama's entire campaign is based on the idiotic notion that because he was against the war from the start, that proves he's ready to be President. Ask Howard Dean how far basing an entire campaign on having been correct on that issue will get you. Other than those two candidates themselves, their families and a few hard core supporters, hearing "I was right on this one issue years ago" not only gets old, but becomes increasingly annoying over time.

Obama's fresh idealism is truly attractive. His hope for an open conversation with troubled leaders about shared values is something that makes him stand out, for sure. Yet I heard nothing in Hillary's response about not committing to a 'year' timeline to meet with certain leaders that resembled the Bush/Cheney policies at all, and I'm wondering where Obama sees that exactly. I think that his comments are catapulting him out into left field, because no reasonable person watching this current spat can fairly say that Hillary has argued for "conventional thinking" in the vein of the vast rigth wing conspiracy that is the Bush admin. She was clear that she would resent having such meetings misinterpreted or manipulated, and her comments about a "way forward" seemed perfectly right on. Here's my real beef with this: what's Obama thinking in making this claim that Hillary remotely resembles Bush/Cheney? Honestly, it makes me more skeptical of his judgment and his deep distrust even of the powers he's aligning himself with (other Dems). And doesn't it make sense that once we get Bush out it's going to take some rearticulations of a new American foreign policy prior to a high level meeting to solidify that which has been laid out by diplomats? Come on. Obama is sounding thoughtful and sincere, but Hillary's showing maturity and foresight. Plus, admitedly, she took the question after Obama, so had the upper hand so to speak.

I think Obama is a bit naive if he thinks high level talks (i.e. a summit) should occur without a LOT of lower-level preliminary discussions to set the stage. Good leaders and negotiators do not want to go to a meeting unprepared, and they want - and need - to know and understand the others' positions before they sit down. Clinton gave a good answer, and Obama actually backpedaled into the same answer afterwards. Interesting that his campaign wants to keep talking about this - I can't see this ultimately spinning in his favor.

Hillary is exactly like Bush. On political reflex she voted to authorize a suit of clothes to take us to war and on political reflex she now is in favor of bringing the troops home. Obama still hasn`t proven himself ready for prime time, but he may and so may others of the Democratic candidates. The question was, would he be willing. He said yes. Not yes under any circumstances. Hillary said no, based on the same Bush excuse that he could not protect himself from being used politically by foreign leaders, which unfortunately is also true. Too bad Hillary, like Bush, appears to lack self-confidence to meet foreign leaders one-on-one.

If you want Bush/Cheney results, continue Bush/Cheney policies. It is a good idea to talk to world leaders that are in opposition to you as well as those you agree with. If you only hear from people that agree with you, you tend to forget that there can be two or more sides to every story. Obama really does have the right idea here, and it seems Clinton would continue the Bush policy of shunning adversaries and wind up with more of the Bush results.

Innocence Bullies Experience. Obama's camp accusing Clinton of perpetuating the status quo isn't winning him points for sophisticated thinkers. It's fine to jump on a 'lump-all-the-old-ideas-together' bandwagon, but it has to stand up to wisdom, received or otherwise. Hillary articulated her position as one of strength, and if Obama fails to see how it's 180 degrees different from the Bush/Cheney "strategy," then he needs to focus on the centrist democratic position articulated by many, many dems well-versed in diplomacy and world events. It's evident he's just trying to get media attention for his "fresh approach" but it's making him sound like a knee-jerk liberal who doesn't understand how strategy takes multiple layers of government working together under a common vision. He's taking this whole exchange too personally rather than seeing it as a statement about the organziation he would be leading. Another situation where the rebellious teenager demands freedoms but has no sense of responsibliities entailed therein. I thought he could make a strong POTUS right now, but this public 'exchange' reveals he's not ready yet.

Its funny that no one realizes that neither Hillary or Obama will do ANYTHING without prior approval from their advisors. Obviously, the Obama camp thinks they have an issue they can exploit. Hillary's camp is keeping mostly silent on this issue, hoping it will go away, or the other side will put their foot in their mouth.

The fact that ANYONE is seriously considering voting for Hillary Clinton, whether in a primary or general election, scares me to no end. Do you honestly think she will do anything but run this country further into the ground?

Educate yourself on Hillary's past. As much as her advisors want to whitewash and dismiss her and her husband's previous behavior, it is the best indication of her future performance....

Obviousley Mrs Clinton feels very intimidated and defensive against Mr Obama, in which lead her to initially make the negative comment saying Mr Obama was "niave & irresponsible". The more we (US) feels we are better than the rest of the world and have a Bush policy not to atleast talk to these leaders will only increase risk of national/international security as well being a malfactor to our economy as a result. I am very much a fan of Mrs Clinton but I don't think she is built to be our a US leader. she would and possibly "could" make a decent VP but we the people have to much at stake to continue the same traditions the Bush Admin has covered themselves into as all pigs do.

Hi,

Hillary can not win Republican's party with same Bush -Bill Clinton politics, this time is critical moment for US we need new ideas to convince the World. She has been long in the politic , it is time to turn the page Bush-Bill-Hillary Clinton,close the chapter for old views,we wanna travel around the world in peace.

I really liked Obama until he started talking. Same old slamming we've heard for the past 2 elections. It's getting old now. I just want to hear a candidate come out and said what he is for, not who he is against.

THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM HERE IS, "Why are we all talking about this as if it is a 2 horse race? Why are we so focused on just these 2 candidates?". Very simple! Because the mainstream media & corporate polls have manipulated us into having this very discussion. How many times have you seen this question in the polls? "Who do you like? Clinton or Obama?" The question precludes from our consciousnesses any other contenders some of whom might actually do something really good for this country & the world. It's good for the corporations whoever is nominated from these 2. Obama can't win, so that would guarantee a Republican President, Clinton will be more of the same, but w/ a smile. If we don't start really being awake about this it's all over!
Of course Clinton is pulling away in polls. She's the Corporate Choice; she's met w/ Murdoch & the rest & done her deals, just the way Blair did in UK before he won. He too was the Corporate Choice! After Thatcher had bled the UK dry he was the more acceptable face of the kingmakers & the electorate did what was expected of them, they chose bad over disastrous; now the Neocons have bled this nation dry & in just the same way, w/ the help of the media, even Clinton looks preferable. Let's start talking about why we have become focused on a 2 horse race!!!! Ask Gallup & the rest why they're doing it, let them know we're on to it, write about it, support the handful of candidates that might really change something!!! Let's hear more of you so-called savvy pundits & bloggers writing about this instead of being sucked into the same scam. Come on guys, it's an old, old trick. Help us get past it.