Mr. Dickerson,

The inconsistency in Clinton's position should not be analyzed by poking at almost imperceptible distinctions in her semantics. Even giving her the credit of consistency, the issue revealed by Obama was that Clinton was quick to fiercely interpret his debate remark as naive (based on a narrow, cynical interpretation of his meaning) when in fact her own remarks could be interpreted in exactly the same way. (Note the tortured language you employed to defend her.) It is her general lack of straightforward dealing that is the issue, not a technical inconsistenciy. Indeed, both candidates would likely meet directly with dictators (personally, if it would do some good) since the idea of not doing so is largely a habit of the current administration and its failed neo-con architects.

More importantly, shame on you for labeling criticism of the vote to authorize the war five years ago (and to invent reasons for the vote) as irrelevant and backward looking. This is not merely Monday morning quarterbacking -- it is watching film from a losing football game in which Clinton played an important role, in order to decide whether she should start next weekend. If you don't look backward and learn from mistakes, you don't know where you are going, my friend. Clinton and anyone else who caused this horrible debacle in Iraq should be held accountable or explain in plain terms why not!

>>Indeed, both candidates would likely meet directly with dictators (personally, if it would do some good) since the idea of not doing so is largely a habit of the current administration and its failed neo-con architects.

This at present is not their declared position. Clinton has said she would not meet face to face. Obama has suggested he would.

>>More importantly, shame on you for labeling criticism of the vote to authorize the war five years ago (and to invent reasons for the vote) as irrelevant and backward looking.

No one said it was irrelevant.