"maybe John McCain really does not understand what "preconditions" means?"

What is really important to me is the obvious fact that McBush and his staff have not been able to come up with anything better than this.

That Kissinger quote was every bit as legalistic in it's argument as Clinton's "cigar" explanations.

Any idiot knows that Presidents talk to other nations through emissaries - never in person at least in the early phases of negotiation.

The argument that Obama was only claiming that he was going to talk to that list of losers PERSONALLY does not wash, except maybe with Fox News fans.

It's also interesting that McBush trumpeted Palin
's meeting with Kissinger but are now claiming that he is "not an advisor" when he obviously is.

Maybe they suddenly remembered what he did to the democratically elected Allende in Chile and the fact that Pinochet was put in power in Allende's place by Kissinger and the CIA for many decades of dictatorial rule.

I have no doubt that Chaney was a big fan of Pinochet.

Do you understand what "precondition" means?

A) Obama said that Kissinger supports meeting without preconditions. Period.

B) The March quote supports item A, and yes, it specifies that the meetings should be progressively higher. This is not in any way conflicting of Obama's position.

C) The September quote--yes, TWO WEEKS AGO, shows Kissinger revising his position to state that talks should start at an even higher level right off the bat (secy. of state, as he indicates.)

This is a very clear issue. If McCain thinks that preparation means the same as precondition, he is a fucking idiot.

As would you be.

Gasket, I'm surprised at you! Still fighting those old battles, eh, my friend? ;)

Seriously though - here is, in my humble opinion, what it boils down to. To reiterate the much-debated moment -
The 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?

I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous. Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.

Obama had responded from the gut, working off a correct critique of the Bush administration's skeptical approach toward diplomacy. But his answer lacked the sophistication of Clinton's and Edwards' replies. And this moment illustrated perhaps the top peril for the Obama campaign: with this post-9/11 presidential contest, to a large degree, a question of who should be the next commander in chief, any misstep related to foreign policy is a big deal for a candidate who has little experience in national security matters.

Let's agree for the sake of argument that it was not the right answer. (I think the right answer should have been more nuanced. He doesn't note that he would first employ lower level diplomacy, etc. He should have.)

Fine. But I'd like to move out of the Gotcha mentality that says he got it wrong that first time and move into a more serious discussion of it. I'd like to know if John McCain favors lower-level (lower than presidential) diplomacy with "rogue" nations without precondition - would he be willing to send his secretary of state to Iran without precondition? Cuba?

What I'd like to see Obama do is get more detailed. Do most people understand the nature of diplomacy and the definition of preconditions? I don't know, and I suspect that his preparation/precondition argument doesn't work. Because, to me, it seems fairly simple:
Let's say I have three goals of diplomacy for Iran:
1. Halt their nuclear program.
2. Recognize the right of Israel to exist.
3. No more state sponsoring of terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah.

It makes no sense to me to say that there is to be no diplomacy until those "preconditions" are met. It's crossing the finish line before you run the race. If it works, sure, great! But it hasn't been. And he needs to give examples of times when it has worked. And make the point that it's not an easy recipe for success and that it might not work.

A great place to start might be the example that instantly contrasts the Clinton administration with the current one. The Agreed Framework. First let me say that I am by no means an expert on North Korea and U.S. relations. I know the right loves to vilify North Korea (after all, they're on that axis of EVIL!) and blame Clinton for the breakdown of the agreement, but really blame falls on both sides. And on our side, on the Republican majority Congress. Or so it seems to me from what reading I've done on the topic.
Two interesting takes on it:
(which I'm going to have to post as a separate comment as it seems to be causing my comment to be eaten by the great blog owner monster.)

The Six Party Talks haven't been doing so great lately. At fault for that is a multitude of reasons. But I'd like to see more detail on individual foreign relations ideas from both the candidates.

McCain, while spending a lot of time criticizing Obama's plan for foreign policy, spent little time on detailing his own, other than the typical blustering talking points emitted from his campaign on the topic.