The wisdom of Hillary Clinton's swipe today at Barack Obama is being discussed largely along partisan lines on another diary.
Discuss away over there.
This new diary asks a different question about this emerging distinction between the frontrunners (and yes, I'm including John Edwards, too, since he answered the same question):
Which position do we want the next president to take as to whether she or he will meet with unpopular world leaders?
Below, the verbatim text of the question asked last night, a poll, and your comments, please, not on which candidate you like or dislike, but which answer you would have wanted your next president to give...
Here is the verbatim text of the question during last night's debate that provoked today's escalation:
QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.
In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?
It was a great question. And it continues to bear fruit today as the candidates spar over their answers.
Which position do you want your next president to take?
UPDATE:With 68 votes cast in the poll 29 (42 percent) favored Obama's answer, 15 (22 percent) favored Clinton's, 14 (20 percent) favored Edwards', another 6 (8 percent) favored Clinton's April 2007 answer (different than her statement last night and, as a commenter notes below, essentially the same as Obama's), and 4 (or 5 percent) voted "None of the above."
But do vote if you're just arriving.
My own take: Clinton was correct in April but fell into a spasm of old-style political pandering last night in her efforts to project a tough and "presidential" image and to distinguish herself from Obama in particular. And today's launch of an open critique of Obama's position is ill-advised.
Today's swipe was specifically ill-advised by top Clinton strategist Mark Penn, who, coincidentally, has long been the chief strategist behind organizations opposing President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela (Google it: Penn has become enmeshed in scandal after scandal there, as has been amply reported).
And it's a shame to see Clinton's campaign hijacked in this way by bad (and conflicted) advice. I'll likely have more to say in the comments below. But first, digest that.
The suggestion that the next US president should be reluctant to speak directly with any world leader it's so, well... 1990s! And I like that this is emerging as a major disagreement because it will bring more discussion and thinking on the matter and most folks will come to the same conclusion that it is time for America to be America again.