Mr. Conason,

You are not fooling any one by suddenly defending Obama here. We all know that you and Joan Walsh (and her white feminist cohorts) and Michael Scherer and Garrison want Clinton to win and are doing everything in your power to support her candidacy. You folks, especially white suburban women, cannot stand to see a minority guy as president. So you churn this tripe about him not being experienced enough....So far what has all the years of experience bought us? Hilary voted for this shiteous war and so did Edwards. At the very least if you cant stand to see Obama, at least support Kucinich.

The answers to the 4-Leaders question given by Sens. Obama and Clinton were both correct. I find it disheartening, however, that Hillary's campaign would try to score points from it frankly ... seems desperate. Quite simply, the result might have been reversed if Hillary had been the first to answer the question. Barack gave the answer I'd hope to hear ... to be overly concerned that you're going to be used for propaganda is ridiculous in my opinion and far better than limiting your meetings to those with world leaders willing to plan in advance what silly costumes you'll all be wearing. (Hey meeting planners, how 'bout Groucho Marx glasses and trenchcoats soon as long as we're going for self-deprecating yucks?) By responding second, Hillary, as any good debater would given several minutes to ponder the answer, strove to tweak the answer to her advantage and what is perceived as Barack's shortcoming. Pundits who are trumping this minor exchange into something more than it is would likely have had nothing to go on about if Hillary had been asked to respond first, and I would have been just as disappointed in Barack's campaign if they tried to make a mountain out of a molehill as Clinton's campaign is now.

I appreciate Joe Conason's even-handedness here.

(P.S. - Neither Clinton nor Obama are my first choice at this point.)

The candidates' response to the question about meeting with hostile leaders during the first year in office hardly required a recitation of the rules of diplomacy--a given. Obama, who answered first, chose to emphasize his openness to resuming dialogues with leaders on our s--t list. Better to talk with the devil than to rush into war anyday.

But Ms. Clinton, on guard for the question that she could reframe in her favor, recast it using Obama's brief response as a negative. I thought her tactic misleading, in that she deliberately misinterpreted Obama's response, and grossly condescending. To suggest that Obama is some dunce who doesn't understand how these encounters are set up was insulting and then to go on and on with a pedant's recitation of diplomacy 101 was a bore. I also thought her response a bit odd. I'd never heard a president talk about being afraid that another leader might use or exploit him as a reason for not engaging in diplomacy. In fact, I can't even imagine a male candidate for president express fear over losing control of a diplomatic mission.

I'm glad to see Obama finally pushback-- he's not far behind her in points and his fundraising indicates a lot of support that may only be too timid to declare itself to polls. Clearly not thinking enough moves ahead, Ms. Clinton, in her zeal to find a weakness, only ended up giving Obama more media attention to hammer away at hers:

Isn't it better to risk peace by talking to repugnant leaders than to guarantee the deaths of thousands of people by rushing into war? His retort that the greater error was to not only go along with Bush's view of Iraq without questioning it, but also to compound the error by promoting the war as the right solution to colleagues and citizens effectively blunted the sword wielded by the pedantic Mrs. Bill. That her greatest fear is of being used or exploited by talking to the enemy (sounds like a personal thing to me) when it should be instead of the consequences of not risking dialogue and an opportunity for peace clearly revealed her lack of bravado--and of self-confidence.

You are absolutely right about the bias for Ms Bill on this site. I've written letters to salon editors complaining about the daily multiple stories on Ms Bill compared with practically zilch for anyone else in the race. I would have liked to hear Ms Bill respond to the question on why she thinks she has more experience for this office than anyone else, including Obama? Yeah, yeah--she's been an "agent for change" and served as First Wife. Truth be told, no one would be voting for her if she was Hillary Brewer, if she had never been married to Bill or if Bill had divorced her when he wanted to.

I think Conason did a credible job this time, and there was even a little bit of thinly veiled pro-Obama code at the end there. Maybe Joe's just not ready to throw down altogether yet? Hell, everybody loves a winner. The facts remain, however, and any way the "flareup" is spun, Ms. Clinton comes out second in it. That despite the fact she got the golden opportunity to really work Obama. She flunked a major test in this exchange, and I don't see Conason dancing around that fact very vigorously. In fact, he seems to want to say he favors Obama in this - but, like Clinton did, comes up a little short.

I do favor Obama, by the way, and have the entire time. I look at the candidates one by one, just as I always have, and I don't give a rat's ass about the gender factor. I just want someone eminently better than what we've visited upon ourselved and then continued to tolerate instead of rising up righteously and throwing the bums out. Short of that sort of true American spirit the least we can do is scrutinize the field. The Republicans have nothing to offer (as has so often been the case since I became old enough to vote), so that's out, as is the rest of the Democratic field. We are left with Obama and Clinton, and one is definitely, in my oh-so-humble estimation, almost a no-brainer.

Let's try to get past race, gender, name recognition and, essentially, everything we know about the past. Those who fail to learn history may be doomed to repeat it, but those who know nothing but history are guaranteed never to progress beyond the endless cycle of variations on a losing theme.

I think Conason, in his very circumspect way, was hinting at this. I also think we're past the nod-and-smile point. It's time to stand up and do something really odd: go with what we don't know. Obama can lead us through the learning curve.