I used to represent the United States in working level meetings with foreign countries (allies, admittedly).  Neither Obama nor Clinton is going to meet with Iran or N. Korea without a lot of work being done in advance, which means pre-conditions.  It's stupid not to because the last thing Obama wants is to meet with Iran and for Iran to tell him to his face to go screw himself.  Iran won't take that risk either.  And Obama knows this because in talking about Cuba at one of the recent debates Obama claimed to have no precondition requirement and then set conditions:

"I would meet without preconditions, although Senator Clinton is right that there has to be preparation. It is very important for us to make sure that there was an agenda and on that agenda was human
rights, releasing of political prisoners, opening up the press. And that preparation might take some time.

But I do think that it is important for the United States not just to talk to its friends but also to talk to its enemies," he said. That's a line Obama often uses in decribing how he would approach diplomacy.

There is simply no difference between this position and the Clinton position since she has also said the U.S. must talk to its enemies, it is only a personal meeting with the President that she would set pre-conditions on.  And as a practical matter so would Obama even if he won't come out and call them that.

This is one of the stupidest foreign policy debates EVER.  Obama doesn't think about the issue of meeting prep or the potential of using meetings with the U.S. President as a negotiating tool and instead focuses on the arguably more important point for the U.S. to talk to enemies as well as allies at a debate.  Clinton hits him on it to score debate points.  That was all fine and well.  Then, IIRC, Clinton hits him again the next day, which was lame, but whatever.  Then instead of admitting he'd misspoke or clarifying what he meant, Obama dug in.  Moreover, he started to try to blur Clinton's position by saying that she wouldn't talk to our enemies, when in fact her administration would do so and that has always been her position.  So when Clinton said "I would negotiate with Iran" to fight back against this blur, , Obama claimed a flip-flop because she used the pronoun "I".  I wish I were joking.  Because when we're fighting over fricking pronouns you know we've hit on a stupid, meaningless argument and somehow I doubt when Obama promises "I" will do something he always means that he personally will do it.

I never said I agreed with McCain's statement.

Someone makes the point, "the clip above is edited". Of course it is, so what? Context? GMAFB. The hypothetical McCain commercial has all it needs from the 3 seconds provided.

This is why people need to do their research...

Independence, you are a good commenter. Do me a favor, can the comments no our biases.

There comes a tipping point where all the money in the world will not win the election.  Just ask Mitt Romney.

With Hillary's wins Tuesday, more superdelegates supporting Obama are holding off saying she should withdraw. Other superdelegates are holding off on endorsing period.

And he could get wiped out in Michigan.

Hillary needs a way to get both seated or she's toast.  

It would be very hard for her to argue that Michigan alone is legitimate.